Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-05-19; Planning Commission; Resolution 56241 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. 5624 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO ALLOW INSTALLATION OF A STORM DRAIN REPLACEMENT LOCATED AT THE NORTHERN TERMINUS OF HIGHLAND DRIVE AND EXTENDING INTO HOSP GROVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASENAME: DUNN PROPERTY STORM DRAIN REPLACEMENT CASE NO.: CDP 03-41 WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad, “Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by James Dunn and the City of Carlsbad, “Owners,” described as That portion of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 31, Township 11 south, Range 4 west, San Diego meridian, in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to the United States Government Survey, approved April 5,1881, together with a portion of Lots 4 and 5 of Cedar Hill addition to the town of Carlsbad, according to Map thereof No. 532, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, April 25, 1888, all being in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California and described as per Grant Deed recorded September 25, 1962 as File No. 164830 of official records filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, State of California, described herein as Deed 1, along with that portion described per Corporation Grant Deed recorded April 9,1963 as File No. 60557 of official records, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, State of California, described herein as Deed 2, and as shown on Record of Survey 13744, recorded May 7, 1992 as File No. 92-27634 filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, State of California, Tract No. 1, Parcel 2, Document 36394 recorded 1972 in Lot 19, and in Lot 20 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and 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 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 19th day of May 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Exhibit “ND,” dated May 19, 2004, according to Exhibits “NOI” dated March 15, 2004, and “PII” dated March 5, 2004, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and d. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Conditions: 1. Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. PC RES0 NO. 5624 -2- 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 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of May 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson White, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, and Whitton NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Montgomery and Segall ABSTAIN: None MELISSA WHITE, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLWILLEP Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5624 -3- - City of Carlsbad MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: CASE NO: CDP 03-41 PROJECT LOCATION: Dunn Property Storm Drain Replacement Northern terminus of Highland Drive/APN 156-05 1-24 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of replacement of a deteriorated and failed storm drain pipeline on private property. The original pipeline was part of storm drain improvements constructed in approximately 1965. The system was designed to collect storm drain runoff from the northern end of Highland Drive and direct it via a 24 inch underground pipeline down a steep slope to undeveloped portions of the Hosp Grove property. The upper portion of the slope has been affected by undocumented fill and subsequent erosion. Over time erosion has exposed portions of the galvanized steel pipeline. The exposed portions rusted, and pieces have broken off, resulting in accelerated erosion of the lower part of the slope. DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: IXI 0 Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. The proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. (Mitigated Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: Mav 19.2004, Dursuant to PlanninP Commission Resolution No. 5624 ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HO=ILL& Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us _- - City of Carlsbad NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: PROJECT LOCATION: Dunn Property Storm Drain Replacement Northern terminus of Highland Drive/APN 156-051-24 CASE NO: CDP 03-41 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of replacement of a deteriorated and failed storm drain pipeline on private property. The original pipeline was part of storm drain improvements constructed in approximately 1965. The system was designed to collect storm drain runoff from the northern end of Highland Drive and direct it via a 24 inch underground pipeline down a steep slope to undeveloped portions of the Hosp Grove property. The upper portion of the slope has been affected by undocumented fill and subsequent erosion. Over time erosion has exposed portions of the galvanized steel pipeline. The exposed portions rusted, and pieces have broken off, resulting in accelerated erosion of the lower part of the slope. PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative’ Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission. A copy of the initial study (EM Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration are on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of the date of this notice. The proposed project and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Anne Hysong in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4622. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD MARCH 15,2004 to APRIL 15,2004 PUBLISH DATE MARCH 15,2004 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www. !iiflGW§k4o§a.lJS @ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CDP 03-41 DATE: March 5.2004 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. CASE NAME: Dunn Property Storm Drain Redacement LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Don Rideout/Anne Hysong. Planning; Dept., (760) 602-4602 PROJECT LOCATION: APN 156-05 1-24 PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad. 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RLM/OS ZONING: R-1 OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of replacement of a deteriorated and failed storm drain pipeline on private property. The original pipeline was part of storm drain improvements constructed in approximately 1965. The system was designed to collect storm drain runoff from the northern end of Highland Drive and direct it via a 24 inch underground pipeline down a steep slope to undeveloped portions of the Hosp Grove property. The upper portion of the slope has been affected by undocumented fill and subsequent erosion. Over time erosion has exposed portions of the galvanized steel pipeline. The exposed portions rusted, and pieces have broken off, resulting in accelerated erosion of the lower part of the slope. In the past three years erosion has been severe. Although the situation has not reached the level of an emergency, replacement of the pipeline is an urgent matter to prevent further damage to the slope. Construction will involve removal of the exposed and broken pipeline, removal or abandonment-in-place of the remaining buried pipeline, trenching down the slope , installation of a new 36 inch pipeline with appropriate soil cover, and repair of the most severely damaged lower slope area. The storm drain replacement will be realigned and all work will be done within a 20’ wide drainage easement to be dedicated to the City by the property owner. The existing drainage easement held by the City will be abandoned. The work will be coordinated with remedial grading of the developable residential pad at the top of the slope. A new energy dissipater will be installed at the outlet of the pipeline on the property line. The existing inlet structure on Highland Drive will be modified. 1 Rev. 07/03/02 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The project location is a north-facing bluff composed of relatively fragile sandstone overlain by undocumented, unconsolidated fill. Geologically, the site is underlain by Formational rock units that range from Pleistocene age terrace deposits at the near surface to Eocene age sandstone units at depth. Site topography ranges from nearly level in the upper southwesterly reaches of the site to steeply sloping, and locally vertical, canyon terrain within the northwestern margin of the property, with more than 50 ft. of vertical relief. The lower slope failure has not yet affected the upper graded slope. However, future local impacts within the storm drain alignment are considered likely, particularly in an event of heavy rainfall. The upper, more level part of the site is less stable due to the unconsolidated fill. A single family home is proposed for this part of the site (Coastal Development Permit CDP 02-42). Remedial grading is proposed to stabilize the building pad area. Some retaining walls will be constructed to further stabilize the slope. The face of the slope supports sparse vegetation consisting of a mix of native and non-native plant species. There are no permanent streams on the site, but an open channel has formed due to the combination of natural and accelerated runoff fiom above. The open channel carries water during storm events but contains no wetland or riparian vegetation. No cultural features or remains are known or expected to occur on the site. SURROUNDING LAND USES: The project site is located on the edge of an older residential area that borders the undeveloped Hosp Grove. To the west, south and east of the project site, uses are entirely residential, with General Plan designation of Residential Low Medium (RLM) and Zoning of R-1. Lots range in size fiom approximately 8,000 sq. ft. to over 2 acres. To the north of the site is the City-owned Hosp Grove which has a General Plan Designation and Zoning of Open Space. All existing residential uses are located on a flat mesa and are geologically stable. 2 Rev. 07/03/02 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics @ Geology/Soils Noise u Population and Housing 0 Agricultural Resources 0 HazardsMazardous Materials 0 Air Quality HydrologyNater Quality 0 Public Services [XI Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation Cultural Resources 17 Mineral Resources 0 TransportatiodCircuIation 0 Utilities & Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance. 3 Rev. 07/03/02 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 0 w 0 0 0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. 4 Rev. 07/03/02 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. 0 A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. 0 “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. 0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 0 “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. 0 Based on an “EM-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required. 0 When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. 5 Rev. 07/03/02 8 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment. e If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant 1.mpact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. 8 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-Part 11 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. 6 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated I. 11. 111. AESTHETICS - Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 0 Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings with a State scenic highway? 0 0 0151 Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 0 0 Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model- 1997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would project: 0 0 OIXI Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 0 0 0151 Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? 0 0 OH AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the project : a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 7 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or US. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or US. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cl 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 w 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significanl Impact [XI 0 0 0 [XI IXI 0 0 0 0 No Impact 0 IXI IXI 0 0 0 [XI Ixl Ixl IXI 8 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: /’ Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a hstorical resource as defined in 8 15064.5? Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to 8 15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique -aleontology- cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? IV. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: 1. 11. ... 111. iv . Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Strong seismic ground shaking? Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Landslides? Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0’ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 o w IXI w 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 [XI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact la 0 IXI IXI IXI w 0 0 0 IXI IXI 9 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated IV. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or workmg in the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OIXI OIXI OIXI OIXI VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: 0 OIXI a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 10 Rev. 07/03/02 .- Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level whch would not support existing land uses or planned uses for whch permits have been granted)? Impacts to groundwater quality? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site? Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cl 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 I7 0 0 0 0 0 o w Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI 0 11 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incornorated m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? 0 0 0 o n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? 0 0 0 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? 0 0 0 p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? IX. X. X. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 00 0 0 b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 0 IXI c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 0 0 0 MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 0 0 0 a) 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 o b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? 0 0 0 0 0 0 b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? 12 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). X. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 OH 0 0 0. 0 Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 0 0 Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 0 i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OB OB OB OB 13 Rev. 07/03/02 XIV. RECREATION 0 0 om a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 0 0 om b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Result in inadequate emergency access? Result in insufficient parking capacity? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus tum- outs, bicycle racks)? UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS -Would the project: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 om OH OH 14 Rev. 07/03/02 c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula- tively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 150630(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: IV. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. V. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to 15 Rev. 07/03/02 applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. VI. Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 16 Rev. 07/03/02 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION VII. AESTHETICS Less Than Significant Impact. The project will have a slight but insignificant affect on aesthetics by modifying the appearance of a bluff face. This impact is less than significant because it is not an entirely natural geologic feature, having been created in part by the accelerated erosion due to failure of the storm drain. In addition, the slope is not visible fiom any public road or public viewpoint. Although Jefferson Street is identified as a Natural Open Space Corridor by the City's Scenic Corridor Guidelines, the site is not visible from Jefferson Street and the project would not obstruct lagoon views along the roadway. It is do.wnslope from existing homes and unlikely to be visible from any existing homes. Therefore, any effect on aesthetics as a result of the project would be less than significant. 11. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES No Impact. There is no agriculture on the site or in the vicinity. 111. AIR QUALITY-Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-attainment area for ozone (03), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM,,). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SNAG). A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state-mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans fiom all other California non-attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9" through loth in 1994, and was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid- 1996. The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth - assumptions are based on each city's and the County's general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. Section 15125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The 'RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following: 17 Rev. 07/03/02 Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area? Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan? The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions of the City’s General Plan and the RAQS. Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the City of Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in 2001 for the federal 8- hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards have been recorded recently. The project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and construction. Such emissions would be minimized through standard construction measures such as the use of properly tuned equipment and watering the site for dust control. Long- term emissions associated with travel to and from the project will be minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with the project; they would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard (comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant Impact. The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15 130 (a)(4), the proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the vicinity of the project. No impact is assessed. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. The construction of the proposed project could generate fumes from the operation of construction equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would be short-term or transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not considered substantial. 18 Rev. 07/03/02 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A biological resources letter report was prepared for the project by Cathleen Weigand of Dudek and Associates (see Reference 2). The project site is highly disturbed by a variety of past events. The report finds no presence of sensitive plant or animal species on the site and low potential for any sensitive species to occur due to the state of disturbance of the site. However, some disturbed and sparse Coastal Sage Scrub remains on the site, and this is a sensitive plant community that is subject to regulation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game. Focused, protocol surveys for California gnatcatcher were conducted in September 2003, and no gnatcatchers were found. Direct impacts to approximately 0.21 acre of sparse coastal sage scrub and disturbed coastal sage scrub/southern mixed chaparral vegetation will occur within the proposed 30’ wide impact area. However, this vegetation is not connected with or part of a larger block of habitat. Using the flow chart for evaluating coastal sage scrub impacts provided in the Natural Community Conservation Planning Guidelines (see Reference 3), this site rates low potential value for long-term conservation. The impact to .21 acre sparse coastal sage scrub and disturbed coastal sage scrub/southem mixed chaparral vegetation shall be mitigated at a ratio of 2:l by creation of 0.21 acres of native habitat onsite, offsite on the adjacent Hosp Grove property, or offsite at a location acceptable to the City and wildlife agencies, and preservation of .21 acre offsite in a coastal habitat mitigation bank such as Whelan Ranch in Oceanside, such that the result is no net loss of habitat in the Coastal Zone. The project will require a Section 4(d) de minimus habitat loss permit exemption should the HMP not be approved prior to issuance of a grading permit. Substantial restoration may be substituted for creation if the area proposed for restoration is severely disturbed, severely infested with invasive non-native species, or otherwise devoid of habitat value. Restoration shall reestablish habitat type(s) that were historically present but have suffered habitat conversion or such extreme degradation that most of the current dominant species are not part of the original vegetation. All habitat creation or restoration work shall be carried out by a licensed landscape contractor under the direct supervision of a biologist, botanist, ecologist, or landscape architect with documented experience in native plant restoration. A revegetation plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City and any regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the project. The revegetation plan shall include specific success criteria. The area of habitat creation or restoration shall be monitored for a period of 1 year to ensure that , success criteria are met. If success criteria are not met within 1 year, the monitoring period shall be extended until success criteria are met. Thereafter, the City of Carlsbad Public Works Department shall maintain the mitigation area in a healthy and thriving condition. Pursuant to Government Code section 65871 and Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 20, Chapter 20.04, section 20.04.140 the applicant shall record a conservation easement over the mitigation area in favor of the City of Carlsbad, with the California Coastal Commission named as a third party beneficiary. Temporary indirect impacts to adjacent vegetations communities such as coastal sage scrub would potentially result from edge effects. The potential indirect impacts resulting from construction activities include dust, noise, and general human presence that may temporarily 19 Rev. 07/03/02 disrupt species and habitat vitality and lead to construction related soil erosion and run-off. However, temporary indirect impacts will be avoided in that all project grading will be subject to the typical restrictions (BMPs) and requirements that address erosion and runoff (NPDES, SWPPP). BMPs would include but are not limited to placement of silt fencing, haybales and/or sandbags in potential drainage areas, watering of grading area, and snow fencing of the limits of grading. Due to the grading restrictions and requirements mentioned above, the project would not result in significant short term indirect impacts to sensitive biological resources. . The project will also impact .01 acre of eucalyptus woodland and .1 acre of developedomamental. Eucalyptus woodland is not native to California and is not considered a sensitive habitat type; however, non-developed lands, including eucalyptus woodland, are covered under the HMP. In accordance with the HMP, the City has adopted an In-lieu Mitigation Fee consistent with Section E.6 of the Habitat Management Plan and City Council Resolution No. 2000-223 to fund mitigation for impacts to certain categories of vegetation and animal species. The City has determined that all projects will be required to pay the fee in order to be found consistent with the Habitat Management Plan and the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan. The fee becomes effective following final approval of the Habitat Management Plan. Eucalyptus trees may be used for roosting or nesting by raptors and other birds, but no nests were observed during the gnatcatcher surveys. The breeding season for nesting birds occurs approximately February 15 through August 3 1; however raptors may begin breeding as early as January. Several bird species may nest in the habitat onsite. Indirect impacts to breeding birds may occur if activities occur during the breeding season. The indirect impact would be associated with grading activities and temporary. Indirect impacts can be avoided by constructing outside the breeding season or assuring that construction activity will not result in noise levels above 60 dBA leq at the nest site. If construction is planned during the bird breeding season, vegetation should be cleared prior to the breeding season. Additionally, if construction occurs during raptor breeding season (approximately February 1 to August 30) a qualified biologist should conduct a pre-construction survey of the project site and surrounding habitat to determine whether there are active raptor nests within the area. If an active raptor nest is observed, a buffer should be established between the construction activities and the nest so that nesting activities are not interrupted. The buffer should be a .minimum of 500 feet and should be in effect as long as construction is occurring and until the nest is no longer active. b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact. The Dudek report indicates no riparian, aquatic, or wetland habitat on the site. An open channel exists but it is unvegetated. c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Impact. As indicated in the response above, the biological report by Dudek indicated no wetland, marsh, vernal pool, or other wetland habitat exists onsite. 0.06 acre of open channel that carries water during storm events is located to the west of the storm drain impact area. The project will not impact the open channel; however, due to project’s proximity to the open channel, indirect impacts shall be avoided through the installation by hand of rip-rap (outside of the channel only), silt fencing shall be installed, and a biological monitor shall be present during construction in this area to ensure no impacts occur to downstream waters. 20 Rev. 07/03/02 d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. As noted above, the site is not part of a wildlife corridor. It is on the edge of existing urban development which has been developed for approximately 40 or more years. The site is adjacent to Hosp Grove which is a relatively large, undeveloped grove of eucalyptus woodland. Nearby but further removed from the site are Buena Vista Creek and Lagoon. However, the eucalyptus woodland has very limited usefulness for wildlife and does not provide a comdor or linkage for wildlife movement. Therefore, the project will not have a significant impact on the movement of any wildlife species. e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. The City of Carlsbad has a local plan, the Habitat Management Plan (HMP), which describes the actions necessary to adequately conserve self-sustaining populations of native wildlife and plant species (see Reference 4). The HMP includes provisions for allowing impacts to small, isolated pockets of disturbed habitat such as this site. Because this site has such low value for conservation, the HMP allows public and private projects to impact the habitat in exchange for mitigation as specified in the plan. The City has no tree preservation policy that would apply in this case. Therefore, the project will not conflict with local policies or ordinances. f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The Carlsbad HMP is a part of the Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) and the North San Diego Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP)(see Reference 5). The project has been analyzed by the Carlsbad Planning Department for consistency with these adopted plans, and the Department finds that it is fully consistent with the provisions of NCCP and MHCP. Both the HMP and NCCPMHCP allow for incidental impacts to small, isolated fragments of habitat in exchange for adequate mitigation (see response to item b above). The impacts of this project are small (less than 0.21 acre of coastal sage scrub), isolated from other habitat areas, and possessing low potential value for conservation. Therefore, the project does not conflict with the provisions of the adopted HMP, MHCP or NCCP. The project is also located within the Coastal Zone of Carlsbad and is subject to the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission and the Mello II segment of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program (LCP). Recently, the Coastal Commission approved new policies for permitting impacts to environmentally sensitive habitat in the coastal zone (Carlsbad LCPA 02-10)(see Reference 6). While the Coastal Act generally prohibits impacts to any area designated by the Commission as environmentally sensitive, Carlsbad LCP 02-10 includes provisions for , incidental take of habitat if the impact is part of a larger scale conservation plan such as the HMP, MHCP, or NCCP. LCPA 02-10 also provides specific standards for mitigation when impacts are allowed. The mitigation emphasizes creation of habitat to replace what is lost due to impacts, resulting in “no net loss” of sensitive habitat in the coastal zone. The proposed project is consistent with the criteria for allowing impacts stated in LCPA 02-10, and mitigation measures incorporated in this MND will ensure that the mitigation requirements of LCPA 02-10 are complied with (see List of Mitigating Measures below). The project will be subject to approval of a Coastal Development Permit to be issued by the City of Carlsbad following a duly noticed public hearing. With the mitigation measures incorporated in this MND, the question of conflict with provisions of adopted plans is reduced to less than significant. 21 Rev. 07/03/02 g. Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? Less Than Significant Impact. As noted above, the project site includes an open channel that carries stormwater. The channel is not vegetated and is not environmentally sensitive. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Less Than Significant Impact. The geological report of the project (see Reference 7) gives no indication of subsurface cultural or historical resources. There are no historic structures on the site. The proposed development will occur on previously disturbed area of the site where there are no known cultural resources. The project will alter a natural bluff face which could be considered a unique geological feature. However, the bluff face is highly disturbed and eroded and does not rise to the level of significance, as described in the Aesthetics discussion. Therefore, the impact to the bluff face is considered less than significant. VI. GEOLOGY/SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? i. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. iv. Landslides? Potentially Significant unless mitigation incorporated: There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones within the City of Carlsbad and there is no other evidence of active or potentially active faults within the City. However, there are several active faults throughout Southern California, and these potential earthquakes could affect Carlsbad. The risk from ground shaking is not significant when structures are built pursuant to the Uniform Building Code (earthquake standards). According to the Geotechnical Update Report prepared by Vinje & Middleton Engineering for the residential project on this site, the existing northern slope where the drain pipeline is to be installed is considered marginally stable (low safety factor) and subject to failure upon saturation, surcharging or a significant seismic event. Provided that the recommendations specified for remedial grading and foundations by the Geotechnical Update Report are implemented during construction of the residential project, liquefaction and seismically induced settlements will not be a factor in the development of the project site. Therefore, mitigation to avoid significant impacts resulting from unstable soils shall consist of the implementation of the Geotechnical Update Report recommendations for remedial grading and foundations as stated in the Vinje & Middleton Engineering Report dated October 1,2003. According to the a Geotechnical Investigation performed for the project by Ron Gutier and Erik Nelson in 1989, one relatively large landslide and an area of bedrock downslope creep were observed on the property. In both the 1989 Geotechnical Investigation and the Geotechnical Update Report dated October 1, 2003, the site is determined to be favorable for the proposed development provided the recommendations for remedial grading summarized in the preliminary geotechnical report are followed. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No Impact: The project’s compliance with standards in the City’s Excavation and Grading Ordinance that prevent erosion through slope planting and installation of temporary erosion control means will avoid substantial soil erosion impacts. 22 Rev. 07/03/02 Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? No Impact - The geotechnical analysis performed for the site by Vinje & Middleton finds that although the site is underlain by loose undocumented fills within the pad and northern slope areas over Formational sandstone units which are exposed in an overly steepened slope condition within the lower terrain below, the proposed development is feasible; i.e., unstable soil conditions will not occur provided the recommendations summarized in the preliminary geotechnical report are followed. Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less than Significant Impact - The site is favorable for the proposed development provided the remedial grading and foundation recommendations summarized in the preliminary geotechnical report are followed. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS No Impact: Construction of the project has no potential to expose the public to hazards or hazardous materials. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY No Impact (a - g) - The project will replace an existing public storm drain system and is subject to City standards regarding water quality, drainage and erosion control, including storm water permit (NPDES) requirements and best management practices. The residential project related to this pipeline is conditioned to require a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) that will ensure that it is designed and constructed in compliance with the City's NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity issued by the State Water Resources Control Board and the San Diego NPDES Municipal Storm Water Permit issued to San Diego County and Cities by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Therefore, the project will not violate any water quality standards, deplete groundwater supplies or quality, substantially alter existing drainage patterns, cause substantial erosion or flooding, or significantly impact the capacity of stormwater drainage systems. h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect ' flood flows? No Impact (h & i) - The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to the Flood Insurance Rate Map. Therefore, the proposed development will not result in housing or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 23 Rev. 07/03/02 No Impact (j & k) - According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site is not located within any dam failure inundation area, or area subject to inundation by seiche or tsunami. Therefore, the project will not result in exposing people or structures to significant risk from flooding as a result of a dam failure, or from inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g?, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? No Impact (1, m, n, o & p) - The project site is not located adjacent to any body of water. Drainage from the site is subject to the City’s drainage and storm water pollution control standards (NPDES and best management practices), which ensure that sediment and pollutants from any development of the site will not discharge into any downstream receiving surface waters. Also, the City’s drainage and storm water pollution control standards ensure that development does not reduce water quality of any marine, fresh or wetland waters or groundwater. The project is designed to drain into an existing storm drain, and the project will be conditioned to prepare a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) to ensure that City standards are met. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy; or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant Impact. See Biological Resources, Item IV.(f) above. X. MINERAL RESOURCES No Impact. The project site does not contain any mineral resources; therefore, the project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or mineral resource recovery site. XI. NOISE Less Than significant Impact. Construction of the project will result in some temporarily elevated noise levels. This impact is less than significant. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING No Impact. Replacement of the existing drainage pipeline raises no issues with regard to population or housing. 24 Rev. 07/03/02 XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES No Impact. The drainage pipeline when replaced will create no new demand for public services. Only routine inspection and maintenance will be needed. XIV. RECREATION No Impact. There are no existing or proposed recreational facilities on the project site. The adjacent Hosp Grove property owned by the City of Carlsbad is used for recreational purposes. However, replacement of the existing drainage pipeline will not have any’ impact on the public’s ability to continue to use Hosp Grove for recreational purposes. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC-Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load’and capacity of the street system? Less Than Significant Impact. The project will temporarily generate an estimated 10 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and an estimated 4 peak hour trips. This traffic will utilize the following roadways: Jefferson Street and Highland Drive. Existing traffic on these streets is within the acceptable range and the peak hour level of service at the arterial intersection(s) impacted by the project is within the acceptable range. The increase in traffic from the proposed project will not be noticeable, and the street system has been designed and sized to accommodate traffic from the project and cumulative development in the City of Carlsbad. The proposed project would not, therefore, cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The impacts from the proposed project are, therefore, less than significant. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact. SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is: Existing ADT* Buildout ADT* Rancho Santa Fe Road 15-32 “A-C” 28-43 El Camino Real 21-50 “A-C” 32-65 Palomar Airport Road 10-52 “A-B” 29-77 SR 78 120 “F” 144 1-5 183-198 “D” 2 19-249 *The numbers are in thousands of daily trips. The Congestion Management Program’s (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is “E”, or LOS “F” if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS “F” in 1990). Accordingly, all designated roads and highways ai2 currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS. Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region’s general and community plans. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was used in modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) “E” standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) 25 Rev. 07l03l02 of the designated roads and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short-term and at buildout. a) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. It would not, therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed. b) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s general plan and zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed. c) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. No impact assessed. d) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. Although temporary construction parking will be needed, after construction there is no parking requirement associated with the project. e) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? No Impact. The project will cerate no permanent traffic demands, and therefore does not have the potential to conflict with adopted policies. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS No Impact. Replacement of the existing drainage pipleline raises no issues with regard to provision of water, wastewater, or landfill services to the public. Because the project is replacement of an existing drainage pipeline, it will not result in any increased need for stormwater conveyance or treatment. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 0 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? Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - With the required mitigation, the project will not degrade the quality of the physical environment. The disturbance of .21 acre of sparse and disturbed CSS habitat will be mitigated at a ratio of 2:l through revegetation of .21 acre of CSS habitat onsite, on the adjacent hosp grove property, or offsite at a location accceptable to the city, and preservation of .21 acre offsite in a coastal habitat mitigation bank, in accordance with Carlsbad Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 02- 10. 26 Rev. 07/03/02 A Federal de minimus “take” permit issued by the USFWS is required for this minor impact prior to grading. A Coastal Development Permit will also be required. There are no historic structures on the site. disturbed and highly eroded bluff face where there are no known cultural resources. The proposed development will occur on previously b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) Less than Significant Impact - San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional growth for the greater San Diego area, and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into SANDAG projections. Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc, are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the region. All of the City’s development standards and regulations are consistent with the region-wide standards. The City’s standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standards, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that development within the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. With regard to any other potential impact associated with the project, City standards and regulations regarding construction of public works projects will ensure that the project will not result in a significant cumulative considerable impact. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - Replacement of the existing drainage pipeline will comply with the City’s standard public works specifications which are designed to avoid adverse environmental effects to the public. The project site is located in an area where human beings could be exposed to hazardous conditions due to unstable soils. The unstable soils can be mitigated through strict adherence to the recommendations of the Plan Review Geotechnical Update Report for remedial grading and foundations. Additionally, the residential development will be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, regional and City regulations, which will ensure that development of the site will not result in an adverse impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly. EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008. 1. “Master Drainage and Stormwater Quality Management Plan, City of Carlsbad.” California, April 1992. 2. “Biological Resources Letter Report for the Highland Drive Storm Drain Replacement Project, City of Carlsbad, California.” Dudek and Associates, February 23,2004 3. “Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub Natural Community Conservation Planning, Conservation Guidelines.” California Department of Fish and Game, November 1993. 4. “Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad.” December 1999, with Addendum #1 dated December 1999 and Addendum #2 dated June 2003. 27 Rev. Q7lQ3lQ2 5. “Final MHCP Plan, Volume I, Prepared for: Multiple Habitat Conservation Program, Administered by Sandag for the Cities of Carlsbad, Encinitas, Escondido, Oceanside, San Marcos, Solana Beach, and Vista.” March 2003. 6. City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program Amendment 02-10 (Habitat Management Plan). Approved June 12,2003. 7. “Plan Review Geotechnical Update Report - Lot at the North Terminus of Highland Drive, Carlsbad, California” dated October 1, 2003, prepared by Vinje & Middleton Engineering, Inc.; “Geotechnical Investigation” prepared by Ron Gutier and Erik J. Nelson dated February 17, 1989. 28 Rev. 07/03/02 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. All trenching and excavation activities shall be completed within the summer construction season, April 1 to October 1 of each year. The October 1 deadline may be extended with the approval of the City Engineer subject to implementation by October 1 of erosion control measures designed to prohibit discharge of sediments offsite during and after the trenching operation is completed. Extensions beyond November 15 may be allowed in areas of very low risk of impact to sensitive coastal resources and may be approved either as part of the original coastal development permit or as a formal amendment to an existing coastal development permit. As a condition of this approval, applicant must comply with the requirements of all regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the project and any mitigation requirements of the environmental documents for the project. Applicant shall apply for and obtain any permits required by regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the project prior to project initiation. Applicant shall comply with all terms and conditions of said permits. Impact to .21 acre of sparse coastal sage scrub and disturbed coastal sage scrub/southern mixed chaparral vegetation shall be mitigated at a ratio of 2:l by creation of 0.21 acres of native habitat onsite, offsite on the adjacent Hosp Grove property, or offsite at a location acceptable to the City, and preservation of .21 acre offsite in a coastal habitat mitigation bank such as Whelan Ranch in Oceanside, such that the result is no net loss of habitat in the Coastal Zone. The project will require a Section 4(d) de minimus habitat loss permit exemption should the HMP not be approved prior to issuance of a grading permit. Substantial restoration may be substituted for creation if the area proposed for restoration is severely disturbed, severely infested with invasive non-native species, or otherwise devoid of habitat value. Restoration shall reestablish habitat type(s) that were historically present but have suffered habitat conversion or such extreme degradation that most of the current dominant species are not part of the original vegetation. All habitat creation or restoration work shall be carried out by a licensed landscape contractor under the direct supervision of a biologist, botanist, ecologist, or landscape architect with documented experience in native plant restoration. A revegetation plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City and any regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the project. The revegetation plan shall include specific success criteria. The area of habitat creation or restoration shall be monitored for a period of 1 year to ensure that success criteria are met. If success criteria are not met within 1 year, the monitoring period shall be extended until success criteria are met. Thereafter, the City of Carlsbad Public Works Department shall maintain the mitigation area in a healthy and thriving condition. The applicant shall record a conservation easement over the mitigation area in favor of the City of Carlsbad, with the California Coastal Commission named as a third party beneficiary. Payment of in-lieu mitigation fee consistent with Section E-3 of the Habitat Management Plan for .01 acre of eucalyptus woodland to be effective upon final approval of the Habitat Management Plan. Schedule construction to occur outside the breeding season or assure that construction activity will not result in noise levels above 60 dBA leq at the nest site. If construction is planned during the bird breeding season, vegetation should be cleared prior to the breeding season. Additionally, if construction occurs during raptor breeding season (approximately February 1 to August 30) a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey of the project site and surrounding habitat to determine whether there are active raptor nests within the area. If an active raptor nest is observed, a buffer shall be established between the construction activities and the nest so that nesting activities are not interrupted. The buffer 29 Rev. 07/03/02 6. 7. 8. should be a minimum of 500 feet and should be in effect as long as construction is occurring andor until the nest is no longer active. Due to project’s proximity to the .06 acre of open channel, indirect impacts shall be avoided through the installation by hand of rip-rap (outside of the channel only), silt fencing shall be installed, and a biological monitor shall be present during construction is this area to ensure no impacts occur to downstream waters. The Geotechnical Update Report recommendations for remedial grading and foundations as stated in the Vinje & Middleton Engineering Report dated October 1, 2003 shall be implemented during the construction phase of the project. Applicant shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Applicant shall provide improvements installed pursuant to best management practices as referenced in the “California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook” to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be submitted to and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Best management practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements . 30 Rev. 07/03/02 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. 31 Rev. 07/03/02 PROJECT NAME: Dunn Property Storm Drain Reulacement APPROVAL DATE: FILE NUMBERS: CDP 03-41 The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City’s monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3 180 (Public Resources Code Section 2 108 1.6). Mitigation Measure -- 1. All trenching and excavation activities shall be completed within the summer construction season, April 1 to October 1 of each year. The October 1 deadline may be extended with the approval of the City Engineer subject to implementation by October 1 of erosion control measures designed to prohibit discharge of sediments offsite during and after the trenching operation is completed. Extensions beyond November 15 may be allowed in areas of very low risk of impact to sensitive coastal resources and may be approved either as part of the original coastal development permit or as a formal amendment to an existing coastal development permit. 2. As a condition of this approval, applicant must comply with the requirements of all regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the project and any mitigation requirements of the environmental documents for the project. Applicant shall apply for and obtain any permits required by regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the project prior to project initiation. Applicant shall comply with all terms and conditions of said permits. 32 Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Remarks Verified Implementation Rev. 07/03/02 Mitigation Measure 3. Impact to .2 1 acres of sparse coastal sage scrub and disturbed coastal sage scrub/southern mixed chapanal vegetation shall be mitigated at a ratio of 2:l by creation of 0.21 acres of native habitat onsite, offsite on the adjacent Hosp Grove property, or offsite at a location acceptable to the City, and preservation of .21 acres offsite in a coastal habitat mitigation bank such as Whelan Ranch in Oceanside, such that the result is no net loss of habitat in the Coastal Zone. The project will require a Section 4(d) de minimus habitat loss permit exemption should the HMP not be approved prior to issuance of a grading permit. Substantial restoration may be substituted for creation if the area proposed for restoration is severely disturbed, severely infested with invasive non-native species, or otherwise devoid of habitat value. Restoration shall reestablish habitat type(s) that were historically present but have suffered habitat conversion or such extreme degradation that most of the current dominant species are not part of the original vegetation. All habitat creation or restoration work shall be carried out by a licensed landscape contractor under the direct supervision of a biologist, botanist, ecologist, or landscape architect with documented experience in native plant restoration. A revegetation plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City and any regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the project. The revegetation plan shall include specific success criteria. The area of habitat creation or restoration shall be monitored for a period of 1 year to Monitoring Tvoe Monitoring Deoartment Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks 33 Rev. Q7lQ3lQ2 ir Mitigation Measure ensure that success criteria are met. If success criteria are not met within 1 year, the monitoring period shall be extended until success criteria are met. Thereafter, the City of Carlsbad Public Works Department shall maintain the mitigation area in a healthy and thriving condition. The applicant shall record a conservation easement over the mitigation area in favor of the City of Carlsbad, with the California Coastal Commission named as a third party beneficiary. 4. Due to project’s proximity to the .06 acre of open channel, indirect impacts shall be avoided through the installation by hand of rip-rap (outside of the channel only), silt fencing shall be installed, and a biological monitor shall be present during construction is this area to ensure no impacts occur to downstream waters. Monitoring I Monitoring Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks 34 Rev. 07/03/02 Mitigation Measure 5. Schedule construction to occur outside the bird breeding season (February 15 - August 31) or assure that construction activity will not result in noise levels above 60 dBA leq at the nest site. If construction is planned during the bird breeding season, vegetation should be cleared prior to the breeding season. Additionally, if construction occurs during raptor breeding season (approximately February 1 to August 30) a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey of the project site and surrounding habitat to determine whether -- there are active raptor nests within the area. If an active raptor nest is observed, a buffer shall be established between the construction activities and the nest so that nesting activities are not interrupted. The buffer should be a minimum of 500 feet and should be in effect as long as construction is occurring and/or until the nest is no longer active. 6. The Geotechnical Update Report recommendations for remedial grading and foundations as stated in the Vinje & Middleton Engineering Report dated October 1, 2003 shall be implemented during the construction phase of the project. Monitoring Type 35 Rev. 07/03/02 Mitigation Measure Shown on Plans 7. Applicant shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Applicant shall provide improvements installed pursuant to best management practices as referenced in the “California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook” to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be submitted to and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Best management practices shall be used to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants when planning any changes to the landscaping and surface improvements. Verified Implementation Remarks 36 Monitoring Department Rev. 07/03/02