The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005-11-02; Planning Commission; Resolution 59771 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. 5977 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENTS FROM RESIDENTIAL LOW MEDIUM TO OFFICE AND OPEN SPACE, A ZONE CHANGE FROM LIMITED CONTROL TO OFFICE AND OPEN SPACE, A LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN PERMIT; AND APPROVING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, AND ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 SEPARATE LOTS (2 FOR OFFICE BUILDINGS AND 1 FOR OPEN SPACE) AND 8 COMMERCIAL AIRSPACE CONDOMINIUM UNITS LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND CASSIA ROAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 10. CASE NAME: CASSIA PROFESSIONAL OFFICES SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO SUBDIVIDE AND GRADE A 3.3 1 - CASE NO.: GPA 05-03/ZC 05-01/LFMP 87-10(A)/HMPP 05- 06/CT 05-06/PUD 05-04/SDP 05-O3/CUP 05- Ol/HDP 05-02/SUP 05-01 WHEREAS, Franz-Yut El Camino, A Limited Liability Company, “Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Bressi Daughters’ Trust U/D/T dated November 22,2000, “Owner,” described as A portion of parcel 2 of Parcel Map 1188, recorded December 20, 1972, as File No. 340344, being a portion of fractional Section 23, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, being within the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 2nd day of November, 2005, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; 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, 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 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) B) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, according to Exhibits “NOI” dated August 22, 2005, and “PII” dated August 11, 2005, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findinm: 1. .. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Cassia Professional Offices and the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 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 I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. ... ... ... PC RES0 NO. 5977 -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 2nd day of November 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, and Whitton NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 1 JEFFRE N. SEGALL, airperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: DON NEU Assistant Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5977 -3 - &Y,&y&T a e FILE COPY City of Carlsbad NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: Cassia Professional Offices CASE NO: GPA 05-03/ZC 05-01/CT 05-06/SDP 05-03/CUP 05-01/SUP 05-01/HDP 05-02/”P 05-06 PROJECT LOCATION: North east comer of El Camino Real and Cassia Lane, Carlsbad, San Diego Countv. (2 15-020-26-00) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed proiect involves a General Plan Amendment. Zone Change, Tentative Tract Man Non-Residential Planned Development Permit, Site Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Special Use Permit and Habitat Management Plan Permit to amend the General Plan Land Use designation from Residential Low-Medium Density (RLW to Office (0) and the Zoning from Limited Control (L-C) to Office (0). The proiect proposes to construct two separate office buildings on a 3.31 acre parcel site. One building will contain 6,340 square feet of medical offices and the other will contain 5.460 square foot of lease suace and a cat hosuital. Auproximatelv 45%, the northerly uortion of the site, will remain in ouen space. 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) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City Council. \ A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments fkom the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of the date of this notice. The proposed project and Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Van Lynch in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4613. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD August 22,2005 through September 11.2005 PUBLISH DATE August 22,2005 t , @ 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 - FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us - City of Carlsbad MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: Cassia Professional Offices CASE NO: GPA 05-03/ZC 05-01/LFMP 87- 1 O(A)/HMPP 05-06/CT 05-06/PUD 05-04/SDP 05-O3/CUP 05-01/HDP 05-O2/SUP 05-01 PROJECT LOCATION: Northeast corner of El Camino Real and Cassia Road, Carlsbad San Dieno Countv. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: General Plan and Zoning changes to an Office designation for the development of 2 medical office buildings, one as a veterinarian cat hospital, on 3.3 1 acres of land. 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) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. 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. (Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). 0 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: December 13.2005, pursuant to City Council Ordinance 2005-368 DON NEU Assistant Planning Director @ 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 CASE NO: GPA 05-03/ ZC 05-011' SDP 05-03/CUP 05-01/SUP 05-01/HDP 05-02/HMP05-06 DATE: August 1 1.2005 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. CASE NAME: CASSIA PROFESSIONAL OFFICES LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Van Lvnch (760) 602-46 13 PROJECT LOCATION: North east comer of El Camino Real and Cassia Lane, Carlsbad, San Diego County. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Franz-Yut El Camino. LLC, 2710 Loker Avenue West, Suite 100. Carlsbad CA 92008 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Low-Medium (existin4 - Office (proposed) ZONING: Limited Control (existing) - Ofice (Drowsed) OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): None PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The proposed uroiect involves a General Plan Amendment. Zone Change. Tentative Tract Map, Non-Residential Planned Development Permit. Site Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Special Use Permit and Habitat Management Plan Permit to amend the General Plan Land Use designation from Residential Low-Medium Densitv (RL M) to Office (0) and the zoning from Limited Control (L-C) to Office (0). The project site is a triangular-shaped 3.31 acre parcel (215-020-26) located on the northeast corner of El Camino Real and Cassia Road. The pro-iect also proposed the widening of El Camino Real in accordance with Citv of Carlsbad prime arterial standards. The widening of the roadwav will be done with a retaining wall instead of fill slopes to reduce the impacts to native vegetation. Development will occur on the southern portion of the parcel while the northern portion will remain preserved open space (except for the EL Camino Real widening section). Auproximatelv 45% of the site will remain in open space. The proiect proposes to construct two separate office buildings on site. One building will contain 6.340 square feet of medical offices and the other will contain 5.460 square foot of lease space and a cat hospital. 59 parking spaces are proposed. and automobile access will take place from two separate driveways off Cassia Road. The parcel is currentlv undeveloped and contains a high percentage of natural vegetation. The site is located within Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) Zone 10 in the southeast quadrant of the Citv of Carlsbad. Surrounding properties include multi-family development to the west (across El Camino Real), agricultural uses to the south (which were recently approved for high - densitv multi-family housing) and open spaces to the north and east. 1 Rev. 07/03/04 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. 0 Aesthetics GeologylSoils 0 Noise 0 Agricultural Resources 0 Air Quality HydrologyNater Quality 0 Public Services 0 Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation - Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources TransportatiodCirculation Utilities Service Systems c] Mandatory Findings of Significance 2 Rev. 07/03/04 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 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. 3 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. A brief explanation is required for all answers except ‘Wo 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. “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. “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. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. Based on an “EIA-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. 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. 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. 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 Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. 4 Rev. 07/03/02 e 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 I1 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. 5 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 0 0 0 II. 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 the project: a) 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 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? 111. 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: 0 0 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? Potentially Significant Mitigation 'Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Unless Less Than 0 CI 0 0 0 0 0 6 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase bf 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? IV. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No Incorporated . Impact Impact Unless Less Than 0 nIx1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UIXI 7 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: ’ Cause a substantial adverse change in the 0 0 om significance of a historical resource as defined in p 150643 Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cl OB cance of an archeological resource pursuant to 3 15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique cl OB paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 0 OB Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. 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. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, 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? d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1 997), creating substantial risks to life or propew 0 0 0 0 cl 0 0 0 0 IXIU 8 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). e) 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? MI. 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 working 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? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated . Impact c7 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 No Impact IXI Ix1 Ixl IXI Ixl Ixln 9 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 which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which 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. 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 (eg, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Potentially Significant Impact 17 o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact 0 0 Ixl No Impact Ixl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ix1 0 Ixln 10 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 B17 n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fiesh’or wetland waters) during or following construction? MIr 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? 0 0 OIXI p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? M. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 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 cl UIXI I7 0 om c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 0 X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 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 om 0 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? XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: 0 tan 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? om 17 b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? tan IXIn c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? CI d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 11 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 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? 0 [I] 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? 0 XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: 0 OH a) 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 0 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) 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 0 0 0 ON- i) Fire protection? 0 0 O [I] 0 OH om ON ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION 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? 12 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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 turn- outs, bicycle racks)? XVI. 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? 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? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 13 Potentially Significani Impact El 0 CI 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significani Impact Ixl IXI 0 0 0 0 No Impact IXI 0 1xI IXI IXI Ixl IXI Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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? ‘ t) 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? (“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 fbture projects?) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 El 17 0 Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Unless Less Than 0 17 OM 0.M 0 IXIU 0 IXIO 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 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) 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. 14 Rev. 07/03/02 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The following is a technical explanation for each answer provided in the checklist provided on the previous pages. After each question is posed, a summary of the existing conditions is presented, followed by an analysis of potential project impacts, the finding and appropriate factual justification. In cases where the finding is "Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated", the finding is followed by a description of the mitigation measures that would reduce the impact to below a level of significance. Information sources are cited for each discussion. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Existing Condition: The subject is located within the El Camino Real corridor. El Camino Real is considered a Community Theme Corridor in the City of Carlsbad General Plan. A view to the site exists from El Camino Real to the east due to its close proximity to the project site. The project will however adhere to all requirements set forth in the El Camino Real Corridor Study, dated February 8,1984. Environmental Evaluation: The subject project will be visible primarily from visitors and employees of the Cassia Professional Offices, as well as, residents of the yet to be constructed El Camino Family Housing project located immediately to the south. Motorists traveling on El Camino Real will have views of the project, particularly south-bound, although a 30-foot landscape screen will be provided. Multi-family housing to the west of the project will also be screened and have limited views of the site. Buildings will occupy only slightly over 10% of the frontage of the lot. The proposed project calls for two buildings, the tallest of which will have a maximum height of 3 1 feet, six inches. This height is consistent with the height of other buildings in the area. w: Less than significant impact - The proposed project will not significantly impact the viewshed from either the surrounding housing, or from El Camino Real or other public streets. Temporary impacts associated with construction of the project will not be significant. The project will conform to the City of Carlsbad Scenic Corridor Guidelines for, grading, design theme and setbacks relating to Community Theme Corridors. Therefore, the project will not have a substantially adverse impact on any scenic vista. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? Existing condition: No trees or rock outcroppings will be impacted by the proposed project. No buildings, including historic buildings, are located in or adjacent to the site. The area of proposed impact is not located within the viewshed of a State scenic highway or any State highway that is designated by CalTrans as eligible for listing as a scenic highway. Environmental Evaluation: highways are in the vicinity of the proposed project, no significant impact to such resources is anticipated. Since no trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings, and no State scenic Finding: No impact - The site is not within the viewshed of a state scenic highway or any state highway that is designated by CalTrans as eligible for listing. Please also refer to the preceding response. - c) Existing condition: The existing visual character of the site is that of an undeveloped parcel, surrounded by existing agricultural and multi-family uses. Annual non-native grassland, southern maritime chaparral, chaparral, and a small amount of coastal sage scrub occur onsite. Environmental Evaluation: Permanent visual impacts of the proposed project will involve the construction of two buildings. Temporary impacts associated with construction will be short-term and not significant. Nearly half of the proposed project site will remain in open space. Therefore, it is concluded that the project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Finding: No impact - Please also refer to response I(a), above. d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Existing condition: The subject area contains no lights and produces no glare at the present time. 15 Rev. 07/03/02 Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will change the appearance of the subject site from a relatively flat undeveloped parcel to a developed ofice use. Light and glare from the proposed project is anticipated to be not significantly greater than that projected from other uses in the surrounding area. The proposed development modifications will involve an increase in urban appearance, but not dissimilar from the existing uses along El Camino Real. This increase should not however, result in significant new sources of light and/or glare, and will not significantly impact overall views to and from the site. The project will submit a lighting plan to the Planning Department for review for consistency.with City policies as part of the approval process. Finding: No impact - It is concluded that the proposed project will not result in a new source of substantial light and glare and will not significantly affect day or. nighttime views in the area. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) 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? Existing condition: The subject site is not designated as "Farmland of Local Importance" on the "California Department of Conservation - San Diego County Important Farmland" exhibit dated September, 2002. The site is currently undeveloped and no agriculture is (or has ever been) practiced on the subject site. Environmental Evaluation: The area which would be impacted by the proposed project is not designated as "Farmland of Local Importance" on the "California Department of Conservation - San Diego County Important Farmland" exhibit dated September, 2002. The property is not encumbered by a Williamson Act contract. Finding: No impact - The proposed project will not convert prime farmland to non-agricultural uses. The site is currently undeveloped and no farming takes place on the subject site. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Existing condition: The subject project is located on property that is zoned Limited Control (L-C). A zone change to Office (0) is proposed. No agricultural operations are presently conducted in the area of the proposed project improvements. The subject property is not encumbered by a Williamson Act contract. Environmental Evaluation: Williamson Act contract. The property is not zoned for agricultural uses, and is not encumbered by a Finding: No impact - Please refer to the preceding response. The site is on property not established for agricultural uses. No effect on agricultural uses will result from implementation of the project. The property is not zoned for agricultural uses, and no Williamson Act contract encumbers the property. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? - Existing condition: which the proposed project urban improvements are proposed. The subject site is currently undeveloped and no farmland presently exists in the area for Environmental Evaluation: The subject property does not contain prime farmland, unique farmland or farmland of statewide importance. Farming operations in the City of Carlsbad or State of California would not be affected through implementation of the proposed plan amendments. FindingNo impact - The proposed project will not affect any existing or identified farmland, nor will it cause changes to any factors, such as water supply, access, or drainage that would affect any active agricultural use. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated with respect to agricultural resources. AIR QUALITY-Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 16 Rev. 07/03/02 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 (SANDAG). 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 from 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 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency @PA) 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 andor 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 15 125(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: 0 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. (Add the following text addressing short-term emissions, if there is grading associated with the project.) 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 17 Rev. 07/03/02 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. Plant Community Southern maritime chaDarra1 d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Total Acres Impacted Preserved HMP Required Acres Acres Mitigation Mitigation Ratio Acres 1.52 0.37 1.15 3: 1 1.1 1 No Impact. As noted above, the proposed project wou!d 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. Chaparral e) Create objectionable odors affecting-a substantial number of people? 1.02 I 1.02 I 0.00 I 1:l I 1.02 (Fee) 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. Coastal sage scrub BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 0.23 I 0.02 I 0.21 I 2: 1 .04 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? Non-native Annual grassland Disturbed TOTAL Existing condition: The subject site is located wholly within an area that has never been developed. The site contains annual non-native grassland, chaparral, southern maritime chaparral, and coastal sage scrub. No coastal sage scrub will be impacted by the development. The site was surveyed for narrow endemic species of the del mar sand aster and none were found. The aster found was a more common local aster. The impacts to Summer Holly have been minimized to result in a loss of four individuals out of twenty four present for a loss of no more than 20% per the MHCP avoidance, minimization and mitigation actions. 0.49 0.49 0.00 0.5: 1 0.25 (Fee) 0.05 0.05 0.00 Fee 0.05 (Fee) - 3.31 1.95 1.3 1 2.47 Environmental Evaluation: The project site is an undeveloped parcel. A biological assessment of the site has been prepared by Planning Systems, dated 10/5/05. Biological resources on the site consist of annual non-native grassland, chaparral, southern maritime chaparral, and coastal sage scrub. Impacts to biological resources resulting from implementation of the project are as follows: Finding: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated - Direct impacts to sensitive vegetation protected by CDFG and/or USFWS will occur through implementation of the subject project as identified above. Mitigation for such impacts are indicated as follows: 18 Rev. 07/03/02 * Revegetation is NOT required as mitigation for project related impacts 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? Existing condition: aquatic or wetland habitats are anticipated. Please refer to explanation of existing condition Section IV(a). No impacts to riparian, . Environmental Evaluation: project. No impacts to wetlands vegetation would result from implementation of the Finding: No Impact - No direct impacts to sensitive wetland, riparian or aquatic vegetation will occur through implementation of the subject project. HMP compliance with regard to SMC impacts and mitigation is required pursuant to CDFG, USFWS and City of Carlsbad regulations. 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, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? Existing condition: anticipated through implementation of the subject project. No direct filling, hydrological interruption or other impacts to "waters of the U.S." are Environmental Evaluation: No impact to wetlands or "waters" is anticipated from the project. Finding: No impact - The project will be developed in an area that does not contain any federally protected wetlands or "waters" as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 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? Existing condition: The subject site is currently an undeveloped parcel. A biological assessment of the site has been prepared by Planning Systems, dated 6/30/05. No native residents, migratory fish, or sensitive wildlife species were observed onsite. Environmental Evaluation: Construction of the proposed project is not expected to significantly impede local wildlife movement or migratory fish or wildlife movement because a sufficiently wide open space corridors exists to the east of the subject site. Although the subject site does include an important community of southern maritime chaparral, its situation as a "peninsula" of habitat extending at the end of a large preserve to the east, and surrounded on three sides by urban development, makes it a marginal contributor to the "link" of habitat resources. The site is not identified as a Hardline Conservation Area in the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (Figs. D-5, D- 6). The site situated within LFMP Zone 10. No properties within Zone 10 are identified as a Standards Area (Fig. 26). The subject property is not located within the Coastal Zone. Finding: No impact - The subject property is no expected to impact any native resident, migratory fish, or wildlife species. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Existing condition: affect the subject project. The City of Carlsbad has no adopted tree preservation policy or ordinance which would Environmental Evaluation: by policy or ordinance except as otherwise described in response IV(a) and IV(c) above. The subject project will not impact trees or other biological resources protected Finding: No impact -No tree preservation impacts will result from implementation of the project. 19 Rev. 07/03/02 0 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Existing condition: The City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad identifies open space Core # 6 to the east of the subject property, but identifies the proposed project site as only containing southern maritime chaparral. The HMP designates a natural preserve system and provides a regulatory framework for determining impacts and assigning mitigation. No other local, regional or state habitat conservation plans specific to this site encumber the property. The project area will be added to the preserve system and managed. Environmental Evaluation: habitats. With regard to habitats on the subject property, these mitigation ratios are as follows: Table 11 (P. D-113) of the HMP identifies mitigation ratios for impacts to HMP Plant Community HMP Note Mitigation maritime chaparral Ratio 3: 1 Group B. It is assumed that all habitat types in Group B will be included in the proposed preserve system. Small, isolated patches of low quality SMC may be located outside a preserve area and maximum avoidance and onsite Chaparral Coastal sage scrub Annual grassland Disturbed Table 4: HMP Compliance Analysis Plant I Mitigation Compliance conservation is preferred. Group D. Offsite mitigation for habitat in this group which is not conserved or mitigated onsite, shall pay a per acre in-lieu mitigation fee in an amount to be determined by the City Council. Group C. Maximum avoidance and onsite conservation of Group C habitat is encouraged. Group E. Offsite mitigation for habitat in this group which is not conserved or mitigated onsite shall pay a per acre in-lieu mitigation fee to be determined by the City council. Group F. Offsite mitigation for habitat in this group which is not conserved or mitigated onsite shall pay a per acre in-lieu mitigation fee to be determined by the City council. 1:l 2: 1 0.5:l Fee Communi maritime chaparral Onsite Mitigation 1.15 acres preserved, . 1 0 acres revegetated not as mitigation The project will result in impact to 24% of the SMC onsite (.37 acres). Approximately 52% of this impact is a result of the widening of ECR to prime arterial standards. This impact is considered small, isolated and located on the edge of the SMC community at laree. Offsite Mitigation Required None. Chaparral Coastal sage 1 scrub Non-native Annual grassland Disturbed Approximately 100% of this vegetation type will be impacted through implementation of the project. No significant restrictions on take of this vegetation community are identified in the HMP. Payment of an in-lieu fee for the mitigation of 1.02 acres of impact will be required. Approximately 91% (.21ac) of the 0.23 acres of CSS onsite will be preserved. This amount exceeds the 2:l mitigation ratio required in the HMP. Approximately 100% (0.49 acres) of the 0.49 acres of Non-native AG onsite will be impacted through implementation of the proposed project. In-lieu payment for mitigation of these impacts is required. 0.05 acres of impact is proposed. None I 1.02 acres mitigated I 0.21 I None through payment of in- lieu fee. None 0.05 acres mitigated through payment of in- lieu fee. 20 Rev. 07/03/02 Finding: Potentially significant impact unless mitigation incorporated - The proposed project can be found to be consistent with the HMP if mitigation measures are incorporated to address the above required mitigation. g) ExistinP condition: Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? Please refer to evaluation in response to Section IV(a). Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to evaluation in response to Section IV(a). Finding: No impact - Please refer to response W(a) and W(b) above. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in $1 5064.5? Existing condition: are known to exist on the subject site. The subject project will be developed on an undeveloped parcel. No-historical resources Environmental Evaluation: No impacts to historical resources are expected to result from implementation of the proposed project. The site is not identified as having known archeologically sensitive areas according to MEIR 93-01, map 5.8-2. Finding: No impact - No historical resources have been identified on the site or within the vicinity of the project; and therefore no impacts to historical resources will result from construction of the project. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to 515064.5? Existinp condition: identified as having known archeologically sensitive areas according to MEIR 93-01, map 5.8-2. The property involved in the proposed project is an undeveloped parcel. The site is not Environmental Evaluation: A review of existing cultural resources in the area of the subject project indicates that no impact to cultural resources will result from implementation of the subject project. No impacts to significant archaeological resources will result from implementation of the proposed project. Finding: No impact - The project will not cause substantial adverse changes in the significance of archaeological resources pursuant to 9 15064.5. e) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Existing condition: The subject site is an undeveloped parcel located in an area geologically characterized by two soil types as occurring on the property. Topsoil and the Tertiary-age Santiago Formation comprise the majority of the site. The topsoil is roughly 1.5 to 4 feet thick and composed of soft to firm clay, sandy clay and silt, as well as loose silty sand. The Santiago Formation is predominantly massive, dense to very dense, moist silty sand. - Environmental Evaluation: The finish grading associated with development of the project will impact a relatively small amount of upper level soil. The Tertiary age formation have a high potential for containing significant fossils. Findinp: Potentially significant unless mitigation provided - The project has the potential for paleontological resource. Mitigation in the form of resource recovery will mitigate the impact to a level of insignificance. d) Existing condition: would be expected to be encountered during construction of the proposed project. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No record exists which would indicate the likelihood that human remains are interred or Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project is not anticipated to impact any known human remains. 21 Rev. 07/03/02 Finding: No impact - No human burials or remains are known to exist in the location of the subject project. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: 1. 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. Existinv condition: The project area is situated in the western portion of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of southern California. This geomorphic province encompasses an area that extends 125 miles from the Transverse Ranges and the Los Angeles Basin, south to the Mexican border, and beyond another 775 miles to the southern tip of Baja California. The westernmost portion of the province in San Diego County, in which the site is located, generally consists of Upper Cretaceous, Tertiary and Quaternary age sedimentary rocks. The most recent Alquist-Priolo Emthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the north San Diego County area, indicates that the project is considered to be in a seismically active area, as is most of southern California. This map however, indicates that the subject site is not underlain by known active faults, nor is there evidence of ground displacement in the area during the last 1 1,000 years. The Rose Canyon fault zone is the closest known fault, which is the onshore portion of an extensive fault zone that includes the Offshore Zone of Deformation and the Newport-Inglewood fault to the north of the subject site. This fault zone, located approximately 6.2 miles westerly of the subject site, is made of predominately right-lateral strike- slip faults that extend south-southeast through the San Diego metropolitan area. The zone extends offshore at La Jolla, and continues north-northwest generally parallel to the coastline. Portions of the Rose Canyon fault zone in the San Diego area have been recognized by the State Geologist to be considered active. Additionally, the Julian and Temecula segments of the Elsinore fault zone, about 24 miles to the northeast of the subject site are also referenced in the Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Environmental Evaluation: Based on resource investigation and field observations by GEOCON Geotechnical Consultants, (Geotechnical Investigation dated December 16,2004) no active faults have been mapped across the project site. The closest fault is located approximately seven miles westerly of the site. The Elsinore fault zone is located approximately 24 miles east of the site, and the Coronado Bank fault is located approximately 22 miles west of the site. The potential for rupture resulting from earthquake is considered to be low. The subject site is not within a fault-rupture hazard zone as indexed in the Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Because of the lack of known active faults on the site, the potential for surface rupture at the site is considered low. The seismic hazard most likely to impact the site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake on one of the active regional faults discussed above. Finding: Less than significant impact - The project site is not within a fault-rupture hazard zone as determined in the geotechnical report, and as indexed in the Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42; therefore the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? Existing condition: As indicated in the response to Item VI(a)(i), the Rose Canyon fault zone is the closest known fault, located approximately 6.2 miles westerly of the subject site. This fault is made of predominately right-lateral strike-slip faults that extend south- southeast through the San Diego metropolitan area. The second-closest active area of potential ground motion is the Julian and Temecula segments of the Elsinore fault zone. No other known active faults are located within the vicinity of the project. Southern California is recognized as a seismically-active area. The most significant seismic event likely to affect the proposed facilities would be a maximum moment magnitude 7.2 earthquake along the Rose Canyon fault zone, in which the horizontal peak ground acceleration has a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years is 0.40g (40% of the acceleration of gravity). 22 Rev. 07/03/02 Environmental Evaluation: The project site will likely be subject to ground shaking in response to either a local moderate or more distant large-magnitude earthquake. Seismic risk at the site is comparable to the risk for the San Diego area in general. The closest source to the site for ground motion, and the source that would produce the greatest ground acceleration at the site, is the Del Mar segment of the Rose Canyoflewport-Inglewood fault zone, about 6.2 miles west, and potentially the Julian and Temecula segments of the Elsinore fault zone, about 24 miles to the northeast of the project site. Project design will meet or exseed existing earthquake design standards. Finding: Less than significant impact -Earthquake faults exist within southern California, including three fault zones within 24 miles of the site. Historical records have indicated however, that the risk of strong seismic ground shaking of the project site is minimal, and thus is considered a less than significant impact. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Existing condition: Liquefaction of soils with minimal cohesion can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Research indicates that loose granular soils and silts that are saturated by a relatively shallow groundwater table are most susceptible to liquefaction. The subject site is an undeveloped parcel located in an area geologically characterized by two soil types as occurring on the property. Topsoil and the Tertiary-age Santiago Formation comprise the majority of the site. The topsoil is roughly 1.5 to 4 feet thick and composed of soft to firm clay, sandy clay and silt, as well as loose silty sand. The topsoil is unsuitable in its present condition to support additional fill or structural improvements and will require removal and recompaction. The Santiago Formation is predominantly massive, dense to very dense, moist silty sand. The Santiago Formation in its present condition is adequate for support of structures and structural fills. Environmental Evaluation: Based on the result of subsurface exploration, the site is underlain by Santiago Formation, which is characterized by very stiff to hard siltstone, stiff to hard claystone, and very dense silty very fine sand. Due to the lack of near-surface groundwater table and the underlying very dense formational soils, the potential for liquefaction is considered to be low. The compacted fill is considered suitable for receiving additional fill or structures following partial removal and recompaction. Liquefaction is a not concern on the subject site. Finding: Less than significant impact - The potential for liquefaction or seismically induced settlement in the vicinity of the proposed improvements is considered to be very low due to the nature of the underlying soil formation and the lack of groundwater near the surface. iv. Landslides? Existing condition: No landslides have been identified as having the potential to damage or affect the proposed project facilities. No evidence of landsliding was observed at the site during Geocon’s site reconnaissance or during their review of historic aerial photos of the site. Environmental Evaluation: improvements. No landslides are anticipated to affect the proposed project development Finding: No impact - No landslides are anticipated to affect the proposed project. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ExistinP condition: The subject property is an undeveloped parcel. Environmental Evaluation: During the finish grading, the exposure of soils would lead to an increased chance for the erosion of soils from the site. Such grading will follow best management practices for the control of erosion, such as straw bale or sandbag barriers, silt fences, slope roughening, and outlet protection in exposed areas. Finished grades will be promptly hydroseeded or otherwise protected as required per the adopted City Grading Ordinance. If necessary, temporary slope cover such as jute matting or mulch will be applied to newly graded slopes to reduce the impact to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil to a level of less than significant. Finding: Less than significant impact - It is concluded that impacts to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil will be less than significant, because the project is required to comply with the erosion control requirements of the City of Carlsbad grading ordinance. 23 Rev. 07/03/02 c) 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? Existing. condition: Please refer to existing condition VI(a)(i, ii, and iii). Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to evaluation VI(a)(i, ii, and iii). Finding: Less than significant impact - Please refer to response VI(a)(i, ii, and iii). d) 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? Existing condition: The subject site is an undeveloped parcel located in an area geologically characterized by two soil types as occurring on the property. . Topsoil and the Tertiary-age Santiago Formation comprise the majority of the site. The topsoil is roughly 1.5 to 4 feet thick and composed of soft to firm clay, sandy clay and silt, as well as loose silty sand. The topsoil is unsuitable in its present condition to support additional fill or structural improvements and will require removal and recompaction. The Santiago Formation is predominantly massive, dense to very dense, moist silty sand. The Santiago Formation in its present condition is adequate for support of structures and structural fills. These soils are considered to have a “very low” to “medium” expansion potential as defined by the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table No. 18-I-B. Environmental Evaluation: Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code identifies the Santiago Formation as having “very low” to “medium” expansion potential. The soil should be prepared and compacted as directed in GEOCON’s Geotechnical Investigation, and footings /slabs for all buildings should be constructed as directed in GEOCON’s report. Finding: No impact - As a result of proper grading, compaction and foundation work, the project will not be subject to adverse soil expansion tendencies. e) 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? Existing. condition: Sewers are available for the proposed project. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will utilize access to the sewage trunk line which stubs to the southern portion of the site at El Camino Real. As a result, no septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal system facilities are proposed. w: No impact - No septic tanks or alternative sewage disposal systems are included in the project description. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Existing condition: During construction of the proposed project, construction materials such as petroleum projects, paint, oils and solvents will be transported and used on the site. Upon completion of construction of the project, some use of hazardous cleaning products on the site may occur. Other than during this construction phase, the project will not routinely utilize hazardous substances or materials. Environmental Evaluation: andor petroleum contamination on the site. There is no evidence of chemical surface staining, or hazardous materialdwaste Construction of the proposed project will involve operation of heavy machinery, which utilize petroleum products, and paint, oils and solvents. No permanent use of such hazardous materials is anticipated except for some cleaning products use associated with normal business operations. All transport, handling, use, and disposal of any cleaning substances will comply with all federal, state, and local laws regulating the management and use of such materials. 24 Rev. 07/03/02 Finding: No impact - It is concluded that the routine amount of hazardous materials utilized during the construction period is not significant, and therefore the impact to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is less that significant. b) 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? Existing condition: Please refer to the preceding existing condition response. Environmental Evaluation: No significant hazard involving the release of hazardous material into the environment would be anticipated since only regularly used cleaning materials will be utilized, only in normal instances. Finding: No impact - Please refer the response to Section VII(b). No extraordinary risk of accidental explosion or the release of hazardous substances is anticipated with construction, development, and implementation or operation of the proposed project. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Existing condition: school. The subject project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The nearest school is Aviara Oaks ElementarylMiddle School, located 0.8 mile southwesterly of the site. Finding: No impact - As a result of the fact that the proposed project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, no significant impact is anticipated. d) 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? Existing condition: compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 56962.5. The subject site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites (Federal database) Environmental Evaluation: The subject site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites (Federal database) compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 56962.5. In addition, it is not on the EPA database of current and potential Superfund sites currently or previously under investigation. Also, to the best of EPA's knowledge, it has been determined that no steps will be taken to list this site on the National Priorities List (NPL). It is not on any list of registered hazardous waste generators, or on a database of sites which treat, store, dispose of, or incinerate hazardous waste. Finding: No impact - The subject property is not included on any list of hazardous materials, and has no known previous use history that would involve the use or storage of hazardous materials. e) 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 working in the project area? Existing condition: runway. However, the site is not within the airport land use plan. The subject site is located approximately 1 mile south of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Environmental Evaluation: Therefore, the site will not cause a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. The site is located outside the McClellan-Palomar Airport Area of Influence. -: No impact - The poses no impact as a potential safety hazard. 0 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? 25 Rev. 07/03/02 Existing condition: No private airstrip exists in the vicinity of the subject project. Environmental Evaluation: The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Finding: No impact - The project is not within the vicinity of a,private airstrip. 9) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Existing condition: located directly adjacent to El Camino Real, an arterial roadway. The proposed project involves development of an undeveloped parcel. The project is Environmental Evaluation: Neither construction nor operation of the proposed project facilities will significantly affect, block, or interfere with traffic on public streets, including any streets that would be used for an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No emergency response or evacuation plan directs evacuees through the project. Finding: No impact - No improvements are proposed by the project in any area which would physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Existing condition: The proposed project site currently consists of an undeveloped parcel with urban development to the south and west. Adjacent to the site on the east and north is an area of low-growing nonnative grasslands, coast sage scrub, and southern maritime chaparral vegetation that may be susceptible to fire. Environmental Evaluation: A Fire Suppression Plan for the project site has been submitted with the Concept Landscape Plan. This Plan includes a brush management and fuel modification zone in conformance with the policies set forth in the Carlsbad Landscape Manual for properties abutting open space areas. Additionally, the project will have a sixty (60) foot fire suppression zone (no flammable structures) on the eastern and northern portion of the buildable site. As a result, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in any significant additional exposure to wildfire risk. Finding: Less than significant impact - In accordance with Section 1I.C of the Carlsbad Landscape Manual, a Fire Suppression Plan has been prepared for the project site. This plan consists of a written and graphic plan illustrating fire hydrant locations, setbacks, emergency and maintenance access, and details of fire truck access. In conjunction with this Plan, it is anticipated that wildland fire risk is less than significant. VIII. a) HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Existing condition: The subject project is required by law to comply with all federal, state and local water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act, California Administrative Code Title 23, and specific basin plan objectives identified in the "Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin. The subject property is an undeveloped parcel with development to the south and west, and open space to the east and north. The Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin identifies specific objectives for the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit. These objectives include the requirement to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Best Management Practices (BMPs). The project must also obtain a NPDES permit prior to construction. The permit will require that the project develop and implement specific erosion control and storm water pollution prevention plans to protect downstream water quality of Batiquitos Lagoon. There is currently no development on the rough graded site. Environmental Evaluation: After development, there will be an increase in runoff from the study area. A portion of the increase in runoff will be due to the use of imported water into the study area for landscaping, etc. The remaining water increase will be due to the increased impervious area within the project site. This water will all flow into NPDES approved storm drains. Application, certification and compliance with an NPDES permit for 26 Rev. 07/03/02 implementation of the subject project will ensure that water quality exiting the subject site and eventually entering downstream areas will be maintained to a level of acceptability. Finding: Less than significant impact - The proposed project could result in temporary degradation of water quality if it does not demonstrate compliance with all federal, state, and local regulations for water quality. The project proponent shall adhere to applicable RWQCB regulations fop control of sedimentation and erosion, including the installation of temporary detention basins or other means of stabilization or impoundment required by the State Water Resources Control Board. All exposed graded areas shall be treated with erosion control pursuant to City of Carlsbad erosion control standards, including hydroseed, berms, desiltation basins, jute matting, sandbags, bladed ditches, or other appropriate methods. Other Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be utilized. b) 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 which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Existine. condition: there is no surface or near surface ground water conditions on the project site. Geotechnical test borings by GEOCON, excavated for the subject project, indicated that Environmental Evaluation: interference with ground water recharge. The proposed project will not involve depletion of groundwater supplies or Finding: No impact - The proposed project is not expected to deplete groundwater supplies, or interfere with ground water recharge. c) Impacts to groundwater quality? Existing condition: Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item VIII(a). Environmental Evaluation: Please see the preceding description of environmental evaluation Item VIII(a). Finding: Less than significant impact - Inasmuch as the proposed project must comply with federal, state and local water quality requirements, it is concluded that the potential impacts to groundwater quality will be both temporary and less than significant. d) 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? Existing condition: Drainage flows fiom the subject site into a tributary to San Marcos Creek (through the La Costa Golf Course), which then flows southerly into San Marcos Creek and into Batiquitos Lagoon. The average yearly rainfall within this drainage area is 13 inches. Nearly all of the surface runoff within the San Marcos Creek drainage area occurs between December and late March. The proposed project drains towards Cassia St and El Camino Real, prior to exiting the site and flowing through offsite open spaces to Batiquitos Lagoon. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed improvements will not significantly alter the existing constructed drainage of the site, nor will they result in a net increase of downstream sedimentation in Agua Hedionda Creek. Urban runoff fiom the proposed development will be channeled into the appropriate storm drain receptors as indicated in the project's Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan, by O'Day Consultants, dated February 2, 2005. The greatest potential for short-term water quality impacts to the drainage basin would be expected during and immediately following the grading and construction phases of the project, when cleared and graded areas are exposed to rain and storm water runoff. To mitigate potential storm water pollution (mostly sediment) during construction, Best Management Practices (BMPs) for grading contractor activities and BMPs for erosion and sedimentation are proposed. Construction BMPs include vegetative stabilization such as hydroseeding, physical stabilization such as dust control, diversion of runoff using temporary swales and drains, velocity reduction using check dams and slope roughening, and sediment trapping using silt fencing, gravel barriers and inlets protection. Contractor BMPs include managing dewatering and paving operations, structure construction and painting, management of material delivery use and storage, spill 27 Rev. 07/03/02 prevention, water management, vehicle cleaning and maintenance, and contractor, employee and subcontractor training. Finding: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated - The proposed project will not substantially alter the existing pattern of runoff from and through the project, however the project has the potential to result in hydrological impacts including downstream sedimentation. Grading and construction BMPs are proposed as part of the project, which if followed, will mitigate the potential for significant impacts. e) 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? Existing condition: drainage pattern of the site is proposed. Please refer to the preceding existing condition. No significant modification to the Environmental Evaluation: The proposed improvements will not significantly alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. As a result of the installation NPDES required improvements, the urban-improvements proposed will not result in a net increase of downstream sedimentation in San Marcos Creek. The flow rate or volume of runoff through the site and into City storm drain onto Batiquitos Lagoon will not significantly increase. The project will also result in a slight, but not significant increase in runoff due to the increase in imported water to the site, and the area of impervious surface of the project. Finding: Less than significant impact - The project will also result in a slight, but not significant increase in runoff due to the increase in imported water to the site and the increase in the area of impervious surface of the project. 0 Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Existing condition: increase runoff. Impervious surfaces associated with development of the project will incrementally Environmental Evaluation: Existing storm water drainage systems on the project site have been designed, approved, and in some cases constructed to accommodate the runoff projected from the proposed project. No impact to existing storm drain systems and no additional sources of polluted runoff will result from implementation of the project. Finding: Less than significant impact - No additional pollution of surface waters is anticipated to result from the project. €9 Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Existing condition: Pacific Ocean. These drainage facilities serve to maintain a decent water quality. The proposed project site presently drains to Batiquitos Lagoon, and ultimately to the Environmental Evaluation: Construction of the proposed project improvements is required by law to comply with all federal, state and local water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act and associated NPDES regulations. As mentioned above, the project description includes a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Therefore temporary impacts associated with the construction operation will be mitigated. The project will not result in permanent or long term degradation of water quality as a result of the proposed pollution control program. Finding: Less than significant impact - Please refer to the preceding responses. 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? ExistinP condition: property is not within the 100-year flood zone. The proposed project improvements do not involve the placement of housing. The Environmental Evaluation: No placement of housing is proposed within the flood hazard area. Finding: No impact - No housing is proposed as part of the project. 28 Rev. 07/03/02 i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? Existing condition: area. The subject project does not propose any structures within the 100-year flood hazard Environmental Evaluation: year flood hazard areas. Thus no impediment to flood flows will result from implementation of the project. The project will not place any structures within the limits of the identified 100- Finding: No impact - It is concluded that the proposed project will not impeded or redirect downstream flood flows. 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? Existing; condition: Please refer to existing condition description VIII(i) above. Environmental Evaluation: dam exists onsite or downstream of the project. Please refer to environmental evaluation discussion VIII(i) above. No levee or Finding: No impact - It is concluded that the proposed project will not result in increased exposure of 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? Existing condition: conditions as identified in the City's MEIR, Map 5.10.1-2. The proposed project site is not located in an area prone to seiche, tsunami or mudflow Environmental Evaluation: Conditions for seiche, tsunami or mudflow do not exist at or near the project site inasmuch as it is located in excess of two miles from the ocean, and no large bodies of water are directly adjacent to the site. Finding: No impact - The potential for damage to the project from seiche, tsunami or mudflow are very low due to the project's location and elevation. I) . Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. Existing condition: Construction of the proposed project will temporarily create (during finish grading) exposed (unvegetated) soil on the subject site. The project applicant must however, obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit prior to construction. The permit will require that the project develop and implement specific erosion control and storm water pollution prevention plans to protect downstream water quality of Batiquitos Lagoon. Environmental Evaluation: The construction phase of the project could result in increased erosion into Agua Hedionda Creek. As a result of the NPDES permit requirements associated with the proposed project, no significant increase in erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters will result from the project. Urban runoff from the proposed development will be channeled into the appropriate storm drain receptors as indicated in the project's Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan, by ODay Consultants, dated February 2, 2005. The greatest potential for short-term water quality impacts to the drainage basin would be expected during and immediately following the grading and construction phases of the project, when cleared and graded areas are exposed to rain and storm water runoff. - As mentioned above, to mitigate potential storm water pollution (mostly sediment) during construction, BMP's for erosion and sediment transport are proposed. Construction BMP's include vegetative stabilization such as hydroseeding, physical stabilization such as dust control, diversion of runoff using temporary swales and drains, velocity reduction using check dams and slope roughening, and sediment trapping using silt fencing, gravel barriers and inlets protection. Finding: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated - The project will be required to demonstrate compliance with NPDES sediment control requirements during the construction phase. Compliance with the grading construction BMP's for the project will reduce potential impacts to a level of insignificance. 29 Rev. 07/03/02 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)? Existing condition: receiving surface waters or other waters upstream or downstream of the subject project. The project design does not propose to create or allow any pollutant discharges into Environmental Evaluation: The project .proposes no increase in pollutant discharges. The project will be required to process and receive an NPDES permit. No significant levels of heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances, or uncontrolled trash will be produced by the project. Finding: Less than significant impact - No significant increase in pollutant discharges will result from implementation of the proposed project. n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? Existing condition: Please refer to existing condition Item VIII(a) above. Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to environmental evaluation Item VIII(a) above. Finding: Less than significant impact - No receiving water quality will be adversely affected through implementation of the proposed project. 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? Existing condition: San Marcos Creek is listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) as an "impaired" water body associated with the direct stormwater discharge from this project. San Marcos Creek has low priority impairment for Bacteria indicators. Environmental Evaluation: As proposed, subject to compliance with the proposed BMP's, the project will not result in the increase of pollutants into downstream waters, including San Marcos Creek. Finding: Less than significant impact - No significant level of pollutants are anticipated to be released from the subject site. P) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? Existing condition: Please refer to the preceding responses. Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to the preceding responses. Finding: No impact - Please refer to the preceding responses. LAND USE PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? Existing condition: The project is situated on 3.31 acres located in the southeast quadrant of the city of Carlsbad. The site is a long and relatively narrow parcel, running largely north to south. It is surrounded on the north and east by open space and to the west and south by agricultural and multi-family uses. Environmental Evaluation: Open space areas will remain to the north and east of the project site. No development is planned in these areas and therefore, no division of an existing community would result from development of the project. Finding: No Impact - The project would not separate any contiguous community areas. 30 Rev. 07/03/02 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? Existing condition: The City of Carlsbad General Plan identifies the subject site as Residential Low Medium (RLM) land uses. Existing Zoning is designated Limited Control (L-C). A general plan amendment is proposed to change the land use from RLM to Office (0). Additionally, a zone change is proposed to change the zoning from L- C to Office (0-Q). Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will be consistent with all applicable land use policies following the general plan amendment and zone change. No incompatibility will exist between the proposed project and the land use regulations on the property. Finding: No impact - The proposed project will not be in conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the project. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Existing condition: The City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities (HMP) allows citywide permits and authorization for the incidental take of sensitive plant and animal species in conjunction with private developments, public projects and other activities which are consistent with the Plan. As part of the planning process for the HMP, a citywide interconnected open space preserve system is identified. Areas are identified as biological habitat Core and Linkage Areas. The open space to the east of the subject is part of Core #6. Environmental Evaluation: The project does not propose any development impacts into the adopted adjacent open space area to the east. The proposed development will occur wholly on the undeveloped parcel located on the northeast comer of El Camino Real and Cassia Road. Figure 3 of the HMP, Vegetation Map of the City of Carlsbad, shows the project site as containing southern maritime chaparral. Roughly one third of the chaparral will be impacted and mitigated at a rate of 3 : 1. No impacts to the protected open spaces to the east and northeast are proposed. Therefore the proposed project is not in conflict with the HMP. Finding: No impact - The subject project site is consistent with the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. No other habitat conservation plans specific to this site effect the property. X. a) MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 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? Existing condition: The proposed project site is currently an undeveloped parcel. No known or expected mineral deposits of future value to the region and the residents of the state are located in the immediate vicinity of the subject project. Environmental Evaluation: No known mineral resources have been identified on the site, and such minerals are typically not found in soils typical of this site. As a result of the finish grading excavation and disruption of the surface of the land that will result from the proposed project, no significant impact to the potential for valuable mineral deposits is anticipated from the project. Finding: No impact - No known mineral resource of regional or statewide value are known that would be affected through implementation of the project. Additionally, the project would affect a relatively small area of earth disruption, and any substantial mineral resource recovery under these minimal circumstances would not be expected. The site is not located in an area of mineral resources as identified in MEIR 93-01, map 5.13-1. 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? Existing condition: Ordinance as a locally important mineral resource recovery site. The subject site is not designated on the City of Carlsbad General Plan or the Zoning 31 Rev. 07/03/02 Environmental Evaluation: important mineral resource of the proposed project will As a result of the fact that the City has not designated the subject property as an recovery site in any regulatory land use document, it is determined that implementation not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Finding: No impact - No adopted regulatory land use documents, including the City of Carlsbad General Plan or the Zoning Ordinance designate the subject site as any mineral resource recovery location. XI. 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? Existinp condition: The subject area is adjacent to the El Camino Real corridor. The project will include oflice and veterinary components, which do not generate significant noise, and do not as constitute sensitive noise receptors. Environmental Evaluation: In terms of noise generation, the construction of the proposed project is anticipated to create the greatest amount of noise the project will generate, inasmuch as the permanent use will not create significant noise. The City of Carlsbad Municipal Code (Chapter 8.48) prohibits construction activity that would create disturbing, excessive, or offensive noise after sunset of any day, and before 7 A.M. Monday through Friday, and before 8 A.M. on Saturday, and all day Sunday and specified holidays. The Noise Ordinance does not set a defined noise level standard for construction activities, but simply limits the hours of construction. The significance of construction noise produced during project construction is typically assessed in accordance with the County of San Diego Noise Ordinance. San Diego County Noise Ordinance Section 36.410 stipulates that construction noise shall not exceed 75 dB for more than 8 hours during any 24-hour period. The only noise generator in close proximity to the project is traffic motorist noise from El Camino Real. Table 5.9- 2, Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments of MEIR 93-01 lists land use categories and acceptable noise exposure levels for projects in the City of Carlsbad. The category “Office Building, Business Commercial Planned Industrial and Professional’’ lists noise levels up to 70 dBA as “Conditionally Acceptable - New construction or development should be undertaken on& after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows andfiesh air supplj systems or air conditioning will normally sufice. ” Finding: Less than significant impact - Both construction noise levels and permanent noise levels generated by the project are anticipated to comply with City of Carlsbad Noise Policy standards. The subject as a noise receptor has the potential for significant impact, but is mitigated and conditionally acceptable if the mitigation measures outlined in MEIR 93-01 are followed. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? Existing condition: by, ground vibrations as part of regular business. The proposed project is an oflice/veterinary project, and will not generate, or be affected Environmental Evaluation: the project is not anticipated to expose persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or noise levels. Although some ground vibration may occur during construction of the project, Finding: No impact - The project will not produce any significant groundbourne vibration. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Existing condition: Please refer to response XI(a). Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to response XI(a). Finding: Less than significant impact - The proposed project is a commercial retail project. This project is not anticipated to result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels generated by El Camino Real without the project. 32 Rev. 07/03/02 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Existing condition: Please refer to response XI(a). Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to response XI{a). Finding: Less than significant impact - During. construction, a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity is anticipated. Construction will be scheduled to conform to the noise level limitations specified in the Carlsbad Municipal Code, so the increase isnot considered substantial or significant. 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? Existing condition: . The subject site is located approximately 1 mile south of the McClellan-Palomar Airport. However, it does not lie within the Airport Influence Area identified by the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellun-Palomar Airport (CLUP), adopted April, 1994, prepared by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). Environmental Evaluation: working in the project area will not be significantly exposed to excessive noise levels. The property is not located within an airport land use plan. Therefore, people Finding: No impact - The proposed project will not expose people to excessive noise levels. 0 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? Existing condition: No private airstrip exists in the vicinity of the subject project. Environmental Evaluation: The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip Finding: No impact - The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) 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)? Existing condition: in a minor increase in the intensity of usage of the site, but not in population. The subject project is an undeveloped parcel. Implementation of the project would result Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project involves the development of a currently undeveloped parcel. No increase in population is anticipated as a result of the office and medical jobs related to the 11,800 square feet of proposed development. No inducement for substantial growth, either directly or indirectly will occur through implementation of the subject project. - Finding: No impact - The project will not induce substantial growth, nor will it induce population growth by providing infrastructure to support unplanned growth. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Existing condition: area is currently undeveloped. No housing exists within the immediate area of the proposed improvements. The subject Environmental Evaluation: exists in the area of the subject project. The proposed project will not displace any existing housing because no housing Finding: No impact - No housing will be displaced by the project. 33 Rev. 07/03/02 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Existing condition: Environmental Evaluation: or other development presently exists on the site. The project site is currently undeveloped and unoccupied. The proposed project will not displace any people because no people, residences Finding: No impact -No people or houses will be displaced by implementation of the project. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) 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: 1. Fire protection? Existing condition: Management Plan (LFMP) area. City of Carlsbad Fire Station No. 2 (1906 Arena1 Road) serves the subject site. The Cassia Professional Offices project is located within the Zone 10 Local Facilities Environmental Evaluation: The subject site is considered by the Carlsbad Fire Department to be within an effective fire response time of Fire Station No. 2. The subject project will not measurably affect this anticipated current fire response times. Finding:No impact - The proposed project is within an area anticipated by the Fire Department for urban development, and planned within their standard response time. The project will comply with the standards identified in the Zone 10 LFMP, and therefore will not have any measurable affect on the fire service demands or needs of the area. ii. Police protection? Existing condition: The Carlsbad Police Department (CPD), located on 2560 Orion Way, services the entire city of Carlsbad. Although the City has not established an official service standard for the department, CPD does maintain a general in-house guideline that is followed in order to assure adequate police service to the community. This guideline suggests a six-minute maximum response time anywhere within the city limits. In order to achieve this level of emergency service and to sufficiently patrol the city, the CPD currently operates seven beats, each patrolled at any given time by one or two officers. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project would represent a slight increase in demand on CPD resources due to the slight increase in retail establishments requiring police protection services. However this increased demand is anticipated to be minimal, and the department is sufficiently staffed to absorb such demand and continue to meet their own general service guideline of maintaining a six-minute emergency response time. - Finding: No impact - The minimal increase in demand on police protection resources represented by the proposed project will not impact this service, inasmuch as their department's service guideline will continue to be met. iii. Schools Existing condition: schools. The proposed project is non-residential, and will not cause an increase in demand for Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project is non-residential, and will have no impact on school student generation. The project will pay all required Carlsbad Unified School District imposed fees as part of the permit process. Finding: No impact - The project will not generate any need for school services and, therefore, will have no impact on schools serving the area. The project will be conditioned to pay all required Carlsbad Unified School District imposed fees as part of the permit process. 34 Rev. 07/03/02 L iv. Parks? Existing condition: parks. The proposed project is non residential and will not create an increase in demand for Environmental Evaluation: demand for parks. The proposed project is non residential and will not create an increase in Finding: No impact - The proposed project is non residential and will not create an increase in demand for parks. V. Other public facilities? Existing condition: Sewer: The Carlsbad Municipal Water District provides sewer service to the subject site. Sewage from the site is processed at the Encina Wastewater Treatment Facility, via a sewer trunk line located in El Camino Real, adjacent to the subject site. The Zone 10 LFMP stipulates that sewer trunk line capacity must meet demand as determined by appropriate sewer districts must be provided concurrent with development. Water: The Carlsbad Municipal Water District provides water service to the subject site. Water is provided via an existing water line located in El Camino Real. The Zone 10 LFMP stipulates that water line capacity must meet demand as determined by appropriate water district must be provided concurrent with development. Also, that a minimum ten day average storage capacity must be provided prior to any development. Environmental Evaluation: by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District for the subject site. Sewer: The subject project is not anticipated to exceed sewer demand planned Water: The subject project is not anticipated to exceed water demand. Finding: Less than significant impact - The proposed project will generate sewer and water usage that the City of Carlsbad has the infrastructure to handle. No unanticipated demands will occur as a result of the project. RECREATION 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? Existing condition: parks. The proposed project is non-residential and will not create an increase in demand for Environmental Evaluation: demand for parks. The proposed project is non-residential and will not create an increase in Findinq:No impact - The proposed project will not result in an increase in demand beyond that already accommodated, on recreational facilities of any kind. - 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? Existing condition: expansion of recreational facilities. The proposed project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or Environmental Evaluation: construction or expansion of recreational facilities. The proposed project does not include recreational facilities or require the Finding: No impact - No additional recreational facilities, and no construction or expansion of recreational facilities will result from implementation of the proposed project. 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? 35 Rev. 07/03/02 Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate 490 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and 19 peak hour trips. This traffic will utilize the following roadways: El Camino Real. Existing traffic on this arterial is 53,400 ADT (2003) and the 2003 peak hour level of service at the arterial intersection(s) impacted by the project is(are) “D. The design capacity(ies) of the arterial roads effected by the proposed project is(are) 60,000 vehicles per day. The project traffic would represent .9% and .8% of the existing .traffic volume and the design capacity respectively. While the increase in traffic from the proposed project may be slightly noticeable, 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 (AD”) and Existing LOS on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is: Existing ADT* Los Buildout ADT* Rancho Santa Fe Road 17-35 “A-D” 35-56 El Camino Real 27-49 “A-C” 3 3 -62 Palomar Airport Road 10-57 “A-D” 30-73 SR 78 124-142 “F” 156-180 1-5 199-2 16 “D . 260-272 *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 are 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) 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. c) 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. d) 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. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? e) 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. 0 Result in inadequate parking capacity? 36 Rev. 07/03/02 No Impact. The proposed project is not requesting a parking variance. Additionally, the project would comply with the City’s parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply. No impact assessed. €9 Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? No Impact. (Note whether the project is near public transportation. If not, then state that the project is not served by or not located in an area conducive to public transportation.) (Note bike racks are not necessary for a single- family residential project. Otherwise, condition the project to install bike racks and note here that the project has been so conditioned.) UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Existing condition: currently undeveloped site. The proposed project will create a small increase in wastewater generated by the Environmental Evaluation: projections for the subject site, as indicated in MEIR 93-01. The proposed project is consistent with the planned and anticipated wastewater Finding: No impact - The project would have no impact on wastewater treatment. b) 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? Existing condition: in quantity of wastewater generation already handled by the Encina Wastewater Treatment Plant. Please refer to the previous response. The project will not result in a significant increase Environmental Evaluation: generation already handled by the Encina Wastewater Treatment Plant. The project will not result in a significant increase in quantity of wastewater Finding: No impact - No additional water or wastewater treatment facilities will be required due to the construction of the proposed project. 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? Existing condition: The site is currently an undeveloped parcel. Environmental Evaluation: The subject project is adequate in size and scope to adequately provide for the project purpose. No additional new or expanded drainage facilities will be necessitated by implementation of the proposed project. Both upstream and downstream facilities contain adequate capacity and functionality to accept the storm water demands resulting when the project is complete. . - Finding: No impact - No significant new storm water drainage facilities are proposed or would be required from development of the proposed project. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Existing condition: The existing site is an undeveloped parcel. There is no current demand for water. Environmental Evaluation: Water service will be supplied by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District. Proposed water usage on the site will be for landscape irrigation and the regular water usage associated with an office complex. The project will have no significant impact on water supplies. Finding: Less than significant impact - The project will not result in a significant impact to water supplies. 37 Rev. 07/03/02 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? Existing condition: Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to response XVI(a). Please refer to response XI(a). Finding: No impact - No significant increase in wastewater treatment will result fiom the project. 0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? Existing condition: The site is currently an undeveloped parcel and does not generate solid waste. Environmental Evaluation: The waste provider will be Waste Management Services, and the City’s engineering staff will have Waste Management Services review the site plan for service adequacy as part of the approval process. Findinq:No impact - Existing waste disposal services are adequate to serve the proposed ofice on site without exceeding landfill capacity. In addition, the proposed development will be required to comply with all federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Existing condition: See previous response. The subject project is not anticipated to create any significant increase in the amount of solid waste. The project is required to comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Environmental Evaluation: disposal, and will comply with federal, state and local statutes The project will create no significant impact on solid waste collection and Findinq: No impact - The project will create no significant impact on solid waste collection and disposal, and will comply with federal, state and local statutes. MANDATORY FMDINGS 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? Existing condition: The subject site is an undeveloped parcel located in proximity to San Marcos Creek , which is a main tributary to Batiquitos Lagoon. The project must also obtain a NPDES permit prior to construction. The permit will require that the project develop and implement specific erosion control and storm water pollution prevention plans to protect downstream water quality of Batiquitos Lagoon. There is currently no significant development on the site, with the exception of ornamental landscaping along the project’s two street frontages. - Environmental Evaluation: After development, there will be an increase in runoff from the study area. A portion of the increase in runoff will be due to the use of imported water into the study area for landscaping, etc. The remaining water increase will be due to the increased impervious area within the project site. The drainage pattern dictates that this drainage water will flow to San Marco Creek. Application, certification and compliance with an NPDES permit for implementation of the subject project will ensure that water quality entering Batiquitos Lagoon will be maintained to a level of acceptability. Finding: Less than significant impact - Please refer to the responses to Sections IV and V. 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?) 38 Rev. 07/03/02 Existing condition: pollution or traffic at this time. The project site is currently an undeveloped parcel. The site produces no significant air Environmental Evaluation: congestion in the vicinity. The proposed project will contribute incrementally to air pollution and traffic Finding: Less than significant impact - It is concluded that the cumulative impacts to air quality and trafic will be less than significant. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Existing condition: The site has no impact on human beings at this time. Environmental Evaluation: adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Finding: No impact - Potential adverse effects on the human population have been evaluated in preceding sections of this checklist. No unmitigable adverse environmental effects attributable to the project have been identified. The project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES 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 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) 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. 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 163 5 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01), City of Carlsbad Planning Department (March 1994). 2. Current Rules and Repulations, County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District (November, 2002). 3. San Diego Countv Important Farmland, California Department of Conservation (September, 2002). 4. Uniform Building Code - Volume 1 (1997); Table 18-1-B. 5. 6. Suecial Publication 42, California Geological Survey; State Geologist Division of Mines and Geology (May 1996). Zone 10 Local Facilities Management Plan, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, (July 1987). 7. Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan for Cassia St. Professional Ofices, O’Day Consultants, (February 2,2005). 8. Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 2 1 ; Zoning Ordinance, City of Carlsbad 39 Rev. 07/03/02 9. 10. 1 1. Grading Ordinance, City of Carlsbad General Plan Land Use Element, City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Investigation, Cassia Road Site, GEOCON Incorporated, (December 16,2005). 12. 13. Preliminarv Drainage Study for Cassia Professional Offices, O’Day Consultants Inc., February 2,2005 Preliminarv Vegetation Assessment. Cassia Professional Offices, Planning Systems, June 30,2005. 40 Rev. 07/03/02 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES BIOLOGY: 1. The project applicant shall avoid impacts to and provide a habitat conservation easement over a minimum of 1.11 acres of SMC onsite. 2. The project applicant shall avoid impacts to and provide a habitat conservation easement over a minimum of 0.21 acres of CSS onsite. 3. This project has been found to result in impacts to 1.02 acres of Chaparral, .49 acres of non-native grassland and .05 acres of disturbed land which provide some benefits to wildlife, as documented in the City’s Habitat Management Plan and the environmental analysis for this project. Developer is aware that the City has adopted an Habitat Impact 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 Developer is hrther aware that 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 City is currently updating the fee study, which is expected to result in an increase in the amount of the fee, and the Developer or Developer’s successor(s) in interest shall pay the adjusted amount of the fee. The fee shall be paid prior to recordation of a final map, or issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first. If the Fee for this project is not paid, this project will not be consistent with the Habitat Management Plan and the General Plan and any and all approvals for this project shall become null and void. 4. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first, the Developer shall take the following actions to the satisfaction of the Planning Director in relation to the open space lot(s): 0 Select a conservation entity, subject to approval by the City, that possesses the necessary qualifications to hold title to the open space lot(s) and manage it for conservation purposes. Prepare a Property Analysis Record (PAR) or other method acceptable to the City for estimating the costs of management and monitoring of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity. Based on the results of the PAR, provide a non-wasting endowment to the selected conservation entity in an amount sufficient for management and monitoring of the open space lot(s) in perpetuity. 0 0 0 Concurrent with recordation of the final map, transfer fee title to the open space lot(s) to the selected conservation entity. 5. In order to reduce the potential take of eggs or chicks of the coastal California gnatcatcher, the permitee shall not allow any clearing and grubbing activities in known and potential occupied coastal California gnatcatcher habitat during the breading season which extends from February 15 through August 3 1. 6. The project shall avoid the use of invasive exotic plant species in landscape areas adjacent to and/or near mitigatiodopen space areas. Exotic plant species not to use include those species on List A and B of the California Invasive Plant Council’s (Cal-IPC) lost of “Exotic Pests of the Greatest Ecological Concern in California as of October 1999.” A copy of the complete list can be obtained from CALEPPC’s website at httd/www.calevvc.org. 7. The developer shall temporary construction fencing in all locations of the project where proposed grading or clearing is within 100 feet of habitat that is off site or to be preserved on site. Fencing should be placed on the impact side and should result in no vegetation loss within the habitat that is off site or to be preserved on site. All temporary fencing shall be removed only after the conclusion of all grading, clearing, and construction. A qualified biomonitor shall be on site when temporary fencing is erected and periodically during construction to ensure project limits are not exceeded. The biomonitor should also prepare reports demonstrating the project limits were not exceeded. 8. The project applicant shall install permanent protective fencing (min. 5-feet in height) along any interface with developed areas (Le along parking lot and habitat boundary) to deter human entrance into the biological conservation easement area. Fencing should have no gates and be designed to minimize 41 Rev. 07/03/02 intrusion. conspicuous locations. Signage for the biological conservation easement area shall be posted and maintained at 9. All parking lot and building lighting shall be shielded as to prevent light from spilling onto the habitat conservation area. 10. No fire buffer impacts or vegetation thinning shall occur within the preserved open spaces. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY: 1. Prior to commencement of the project, and pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, the project proponent shall notify the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) of the activities proposed, and shall receive water quality certification for the construction operation, if required by the RWQCB. 2. The project proponent shall comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulations as promulgated by the California RWQCB for the San Diego region. This shall include control of all non-storm discharges during construction, and development and implementation of a monitoring and reporting program to assess the storm water pollution prevention plan. - 3. The project proponent shall comply with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (December 2003) and adhere to applicable RWQCB regulations for control of sedimentation and erosion, including Best Management Practices, such as installation of temporary detention basins or other means of stabilization or impoundment required by the State Water Resources Control Board. The following guidelines shall be utilized during design and implemented during construction to reduce runoff and minimize erosion: a. Comply with current drainage design policies set forth in the City of Carlsbad procedures. b. Create desiltation basins where necessary to minimize erosion and prevent sediment transport until the storm drain system is in place. C. Landscape all exposed, manufactured slopes per City of Carlsbad erosion control standards. d. Phase grading operations and slope landscaping to reduce the susceptibility of slopes to erosion. e. Control sediment production from graded building pads with low perimeter berms, desiltation basins, jute matting, sandbags, bladed ditches, or other appropriate methods. CULTURAL RESOURCES A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of excavations and, if necessary, salvage exposed fossils. The frequency of inspections will depend on the rate of excavations, the materials being excavated, and the abundance of fossils. The palentologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed fossil to facilitate excavation and, if necessary, salvage. Because of the small nature of fossils present in these rock units, matrix samples should be collected for processing through fine mesh screens. Provisions for preparation and curation shall be made before the fossils are donated to their final repository. All fossils collected should be donated to a museum with a systematic palentological collection, such as the San Diego National History Museum. 42 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. 42 Rev. 07/03/02