Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-01-04; Planning Commission; Resolution 60101 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. 6010 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION APPROVING THE REPAIR OF EROSION DAMAGE ALONG SAN MARCOS CREEK ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL AND NORTH OF LA COSTA AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6. CASE NAME: SAN MARCOS CREEK EROSION REPAIR CASE NO.: SUP 05- 10 WHEREAS, KSL La Costa Resort Company LLC, “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as A Parcel of land being a portion of Lot 14, Section 35, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian in the City of Carlsbad, in the County of San Diego, State of California, according to the oficial plat (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 4th day of January 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby ADOPTS the Negative Declaration, Exhibit “ND,” dated January 4, 2006 according to Exhibits “NOI” dated November 23, 2005, and “PII” dated November 17,2005, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: 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 Findinm : 1. Th a. b. C. d. Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to adopting the project; and the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of January 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Montgomery, and Whitton NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: fi DON NEU Assistant Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 6010 -2- - City of Carlsbad NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: PROJECT LOCATION: Real and northerly of La Costa Avenue within the La Costa Resort and Spa development. San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair Alone; the northerly side of San Marcos Creek, east of El Camino CASE NO: SUP 05-10 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed proiect is a request for approval of a Floodplain Special Use Permit (SUP) to repair erosion damage along San Marcos Creek located on the east side of El Camino Real and northerly of La Costa Avenue. The area of repair is located roughly 1500 feet easterly of the San Marcos Creek bridge on El Camino Real. The length of the repair is 400 feet long and consists of placing rip-rap material along the channel edge above the ordinary high water mark. 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 Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission. 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 from 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) 602-46 13. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD November 23,2005 through December 13.2005 PUBLISH DATE November 23,2005 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 wwwMwWWka.us @ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 CASE NO: SUP 05-10 DATE: November 17.2005 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. CASE NAME: San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Van Lynch (760) 602-461 3 PROJECT LOCATION: Along the northerly side of San Marcos Creek. east of El Camino Real and northerly of La Costa Avenue within the La Costa Resort and Spa development. APN 21 6-1 23-07-00 PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: La Costa Resort and Spa, 2100 Costa Del Mar Rd, Carlsbad CA 92009 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Open Space (OS) ZONING: Planned Community (PC) - La Costa Master Plan MP 03-02 OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (Le., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): None PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The proposed project is a request for approval of a Floodplain Special Use Permit (SUP) to repair erosion damage along San Marcos Creek located on the east side of El Camino Real and northerly of La Costa Avenue. The area of repair is located roughly 1500 feet easterly of the San Marcos Creek bridge on El Camino Real. The length of the repair is 400 feet long and consists of placing rip-rap material along the channel edge. The rip-rap material consists of a two to four ton rock base with a !4 ton rock fill material placed on top of the base material which would replace the lost soil material. All material will be placed above the ordinary hi& water mark and will not require a United States Army Corps of Engineers permit. All work would be done from the northerly side of the creek from the existing service road. 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 Geology/Soils Noise 0 Agricultural Resources 0 Hmards/Hazardous Materials 0 Population and Housing 0 Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Public Services 0 Biological Resources 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Recreation Cultural Resources 6 0 Mineral Resources 0 TransportatiodCirculation 0 Utilities ti Service Systems u Mandatory Findings of Significance 2 Rev. 07IQ3lQ4 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 firther is required. 3 Rev. 07/03/02 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 “NO Impact” answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “NO Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. “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 II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but &I 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 0 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 Unless Mitigation Incorporated Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant No Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? El 0 0 OEI OEI b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? OIXI c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 0 0 0 0 d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 11. 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-] 997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: OIXI 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? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? OIXI 0 0 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? III. 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? 6 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 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 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation [ncorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 IXI Ixl 0 0 0 IXI No Impact IXI IXI IXI' IXI 0 0 IXI IXI Ixl 0 7 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse .change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 0 15064.5? Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to 0 1 5 064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: 1. 11. iii. iv. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Strong seismic ground shaking? Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Landslides? Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating Substantial risks to life or property? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Unless Less Than 0 OIXI 0 OIXI 0 OIX] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OIXI OIXI om OIXI OIXI 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? VII. 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 0 0 Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Unless Less Than 0 OH I7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OB OH OB OB om Rev. 07/03/02 9 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 0 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)? Ixl Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 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? 0 0 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? 0 0 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? 0 0 0 0 0 0 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? 0 0 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? 0 0 0 0 Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. 0 0 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)? OIxl OBI IXIO OBI OBI 0 IXI- OBI OH 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 OBI 0 0 OBI n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? 0 0 OBI p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? OIXI 0 0 0 0 OIXI 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 0 OBI c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 0 0 ON OIXI 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? 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? 0 0 XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: 0 0 OBI a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? 0 0 OIXI b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? 0 0 OBI c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 0 OBI 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 Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 OH 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? o 0 OBI 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? 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)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 0 0 0 0 0 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: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? 0 0 *o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v) Other public facilities? ' XIV. RECREATION 0 0 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? OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH 12 Rev. 07/03 102 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC - Would the project: Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Result in inadequate emergency access? Result in insufficient parking capacity? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus tum- outs, bicycle racks)? 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? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Unless Less Than 0 om 0 OB 0 0 0 0 0 0 om OB OB OH OB OH OB OH 13 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 OM 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? 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? 0 OM 0 0 om f) XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 0 0 OIX] 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? o 0 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula- tively considerable’’ means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 0 0 c) OM 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) b) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. 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 AESTHETICS Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along several hundred feet of stream bank and will not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway? No ImDact The project site is not located near a designated State Scenic Highway. The closest Highway that would be eligible for designation is Interstate 5, which is located approximately 2 miles west of the project site (California Department of Transportation 1999). However, Interstate 5 has not been designated as a State Scenic Highway. The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along several hundred feet of stream bank and will not result in the substantial damage of scenic resources. The project will not impact trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ImDact No The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along several hundred feet of stream bank and will not result in the substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact Implementation of the stream bank stabilization will not involve the placement of lighting which would adversely affect day or nighttime view. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES 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? No Impact The project site is not classified as either Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The project site located along San Marcos Creek, and a tributary of the Creek, that passes through a commercial land use (La Costa Resort and Spa). Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact The proposed project site is not under a Williamson Act contract, nor is the project site zoned for agricultural uses. The project site is currently zoned Planned Community and supports a commercial use. No conflicts are known to exist. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? No Impact The proposed project will not convert any farmland to any non-agricultural use. The project site does not support agricultural uses, nor are there agricultural uses in the project vicinity. The project site located along San Marcos Creek, and a tributary of the Creek, that passes through an urbanized setting. 15 111. AIR QUALITY-Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-attainment area for ozone (03), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PMlo). 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 (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1 996. The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city’s and the County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. Section 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 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. 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 16 Rev. 07/03/02 proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15 130 (a)(4), the proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the vicinity of the project. No impact is assessed. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. The construction of the proposed project could generate fumes from the operation of construction equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would be short-term or transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not considered substantial. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 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 the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Imaact The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along several hundred feet of stream bank. Stabilization materials will be placed above the OHWM. Based upon a field visit by Nick Muscolino, HDR Biologist on March 98, 2005, the site proposed for stabilization supported non-native grassland species in the past. However, due to recent storm events, the project site has faced erosion, and much of the habitat was damaged and/or destroyed. According to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the only sensitive species that may occur on the study site is wart-stemmed ceonothus which was not observed. Floral species observed on the projects site include: cereal rye, wild radish, red-stem filaree, and bristly oxtongue. During the site visit, no wildlife species identified as candidate, sensitive or special status in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by CDFG or USFWS were identified on the project site. Wildlife species observed on the project site include black phoebe, American crow, anna’s hummingbird, and mourning dove. In summary, candidate, sensitive or special status species are not expected to occur on the site proposed for stabilization. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along several hundred feet of stream bank above the OHWM. The site proposed for stabilization supported non-native grassland species in the past, however, due recent storm events, the project site has faced extensive erosion, and much of the habitat was damaged and/or destroyed. Implementation of the project will not result in a substantial adverse impact to riparian habitat or sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less than Simificant The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along several hundred feet of stream bank. Based upon a site visit conducted by Nick Muscolino, HDR Biologist, the site proposed for stabilization does not contain wetland habitat or support species that would typically be found in wetland habitat. The project site supported non-native grasslands that were damaged during high water flows from recent storm events. All stabilization materials will be placed above the OHWM. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Imaact 17 Rev. 07/03/02 The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along several hundred feet of stream bank above the OHWM. Stabilization materials will not be placed in the watercourse. While watercourses can act as wildlife corridors, the project is not expected to impact the functionality of San Marcos Creek and the tributary to the creek as a wildlife corridor. No wildlife nursery sites, including avian nests, were noted during the field visit conducted by Nick Muscolino, HDR Biologist. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No ImDact There are no known conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The project will not impact biological resources. a) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No ImDact The project site is identified as “Development Area” within the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP) (Figure 28). The placement of stabilizing materials along several hundred feet of stream bank will not conflict with the provisions of the Carlsbad HMP. g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? Less than Significant While stabilization materials will be concentrated along the bank of San Marcos Creek, a tributary enters the Creek at the proposed stabilization area, and stabilization materials may be placed at the confluence of the tributary and Creek. The portion of the tributary adjacent to the project site passes along a portion of the golf green and Bermuda grass. Stabilization efforts at the project site will result in a less than significant impact to the tributary. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? No ImDact. The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along several hundred feet of stream bank in an urbanized setting. The project site would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 8 15064.5. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 5 15064.5? No ImDact. The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along several hundred feet of stream bank in an urbanized setting. The project site would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in 5 15064.5. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No ImDact. The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along several hundred feet of stream bank in an urbanized setting. The project site would not include deep excavations. Therefore, the project does not have the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site, or a unique geologic feature. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No ImDact. The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along several hundred feet of stream bank in an urbanized setting. The project site would not result in the disturbance of human remains. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 18 Rev. 07/03/02 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. No Impact The project would not subject people or structures to potential adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death due to the rupture of a known earthquake fault. The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along several hundred feet of stream bank. Based upon review of the SanGis Interactive Mapping feature at www.sangis.org, the project site is not located in an area with an identified fault. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? No Impact. The project would not expose people or structures to potential seismic ground shaking, as the project does not involve the construction of structures. The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along several hundred feet of stream bank. Therefore, no impact is identified. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact The project would not subject people or structures to potential adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death due to seismic-ground failures and/or liquefaction. The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along several hundred feet of stream bank. iv) Landslides? No Impact The project would not subject people or structures to potential adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death due to landslides. The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along several hundred feet of stream bank. The project site represents a stream bank in a generally flat setting. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No Impact The project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The project would actually decrease soil erosion by decreasing bank erosion through placement of bank stabilization materials. 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? No Impact The project site is not located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the projects. The site is subject to erosion; however, the project is intended to reduce the instability in the short term until a long term solution is designed, authorized, and implemented. 4 Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? No Impact The project site is not located on an expansive soil, nor does the project propose any uses that would create a substantial risk to life or property. e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact Not applicable to the project. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? No Impact The proposed project will not transport, use of or dispose any hazardous material; therefore no impact is identified. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset 19 Rev. 07/03/02 and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No Impact There is no potential for release of hazardous materials from accidental conditions; therefore, no impact is identified. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No ImDact There are no schools within a !4 mile of the affected areas. Additionally, the project will not emit or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste, therefore no impact is identified. 4 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 the environment? No ImDact The project site is not located on any hazardous materials site as designated by Government Code Section 65962.5. There is no opportunity to create a significant hazard to the public or environment. Therefore, no impact is identified. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact The project site is located more than two miles south of the McClellan-Palomar Airport, a public airport servicing north county San Diego. The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along several hundred feet of stream bank and will not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. 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? No Impact The project site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, there is no potential for impact. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact The project will not conflict with any emergency response or evacuation plans. Therefore, no impact is identified. 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? No Impact The project site is located within a resodgolf setting, and is surrounded by urban development. The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along several hundred feet of stream bank and will not expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss due to wildland fires. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER OUALITY a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No Impact Implementation of the project will not result in the violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., 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)? No Impact The project will not use groundwater supplies, nor will it interfere with groundwater recharge. 20 Rev. 07/03/02 c) Impacts to groundwater quality? No Impact. The project involves the placement of stabilization materials along a portion of stream bank. The project will not result in an impact to groundwater quality. 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 flooding on- or off-site? & Impact The project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. Any stabilization material would be placed above the OHWM. The project would not increase the potential for flooding on or off-site. 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 rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? No Impact The project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. The placement of rock material for stabilization would not result in a substantial increase of impervious surfaces, and would not substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff, thus resulting on flowing on- or off-site. r) 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? No Impact The project will not create or contribute runoff. The project will provide stabilization to handle runoff water during large storm events. g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less than Simificant Stabilization materials will be placed above the OHWM, and are not expected to substantially degrade water quality. The project would decrease the amount of erosion material entering the water during a large storm event. This actually represents a beneficial impact. h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact The project does not propose any housing. Therefore, this issue is not applicable. i) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? No ImDact The project site is located within the 100-year flood plain. Stabilization materials will be placed above the OHWM only in the event of a future large storm event. The placement of materials would not impede or redirect 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? No Impact Implementation of the project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury, or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. The project does not propose uses that would be used by people, nor does it proposed any structures. Therefore, there is no relevance to this issue. k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact The project will not expose people to inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. 1) Increase erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters? No ImDact 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)? No ImDact 21 Rev. 07/03/02 n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? Implementation of the project will not result in a change in receiving water quality during or following construction. Stabilization materials will be placed above the OHWM. 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? No Impact. San Marcos Creek is not identified on the 303(d) list as an impaired water body. Therefore, this issue is not applicable to the project. PI The exceedanee of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? Implementation of the project will not result in the exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses. The project will improve water quality by decreases erosion activity into San Marcos Creek. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact The project does not propose any uses that would divide an established community. Therefore, no impact is identified. 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? No Impact The project will not 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. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact The project site is identified as “Development Area” within the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP) (Figure 28). The placement of stabilizing materials along several hundred feet of stream bank will not conflict with the provisions of the Carlsbad HMP. X. MINERAL RESOURCES a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact The project site is not known to have any mineral resource that may be of value to the region or State. There is no opportunity to affect this type of mineral resource. 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? No Impact The project site is not designated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site by any plan. There is no relevance to this issue. XI. NOISE 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? No Impact 22 Rev. 07/03/02 The project does not propose any uses that would expose people to, or generate noise levels in excess of standards established by the City of Carlsbad. The only temporary noise sources would be the stockpile of stabilization materials, and any noise associated with the placement of the materials along the stream bank. These two activities do not produce an excessive level of noise. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? No Impact The project does not propose any uses that would expose people to, or generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact The project does not propose any uses that would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. Any noise-generating activity associated with the project would not be considered substantial. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No ImDact The project does not propose any uses that would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. Any noise-generating activity associated with the project would be temporary, however, these temporary increase would be associated with the stockpile and placement of stabilization materials. e) For a project located 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 expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact The project site is not located within an airport land use plan. Therefore, this issue is not applicable to the project. 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? No Impact The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. This issue is not applicable. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING a) Induce substantial population 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)? No Impact. The project does not propose any uses that would induce substantial population growth. This issue is not applicable. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact Residences are not located within the project site. This issue is not applicable. e) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact Residences or populations are not located within the project site. This issue is not applicable. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental 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: 23 Rev. 07/03/02 a) Fire protection? No Impact The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along several hundred feet of stream bank and will not result in an impact to fire protection services. b) Police protection? No Impact The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along several hundred feet of stream bank and will not result in an impact to police protection services. c) Schools? No Impact The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along several hundred feet of stream bank and will not result in an impact to schools. d) Parks? No Impact The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along several hundred feet of stream bank and will not result in an impact to parks. e) Other public facilities? No Impact The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along several hundred feet of stream bank and will not result in an impact to other public facilities. XIV. 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? No Impact The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along several hundred feet of stream bank and will not result in the increase in use of existing neighborhood or regional parks. The project site is located on private property. 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? No Impact The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along several hundred feet of stream bank and will not result in the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (Le., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? No Impact The project will require the import a maximum of 105 cubic yards of rockshoulders to stabilize the bank. Assuming an average haul truck capacity of 8 cubic yards, this represents approximately 13 truck trips. The materials will also need to be removed from the project site once a final, permanent stabilization has been developed. Therefore, another 13 truck trips would be required at a later date. This is not a substantial addition of vehicles compared to existing traffic levels. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? No Impact The number of trips associated with the project (26 total) is not considerable enough to exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of significance standard established by the county congestion management agency for designation roads or highways. 24 Rev. 07/03/02 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 project does not propose a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels, or a change in location that results in a substantial safety risk. This issue is not applicable to the project. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp cuwes or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along several hundred feet of stream bank. No roads are proposed as part of the bank stabilization. This issue is not applicable to the project. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The access road adjacent to the project site may require temporary closure during the placement of stabilization materials. The temporary closure of the access road will not impede emergency access to the La Costa Resort and Spa. 0 Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact The project will not result in inadequate parking capacity. The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along several hundred feet of stream bank. This issue is not applicable to the project. 9) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact The project will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along several hundred feet of stream bank. This issue is not applicable to the project. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact The project does not propose activities that will exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along several hundred feet of stream bank above the OHWM. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact The project does not propose activities that will require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities of the expansion of existing facilities. The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along several hundred feet of stream bank. There is no relevance to this issue. 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? No Impact The project does not propose activities that will significantly impact storm water drainage facilities. The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along several hundred feet of stream bank. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact The project does not propose activities that will significantly impact water supply. The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along several hundred feet of stream bank. This issue is not applicable to the project. 25 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? No Imuact The project does not propose activities that will significantly impact wastewater treatment providers. The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along several hundred feet of stream bank. This issue is not applicable to the project. 0 Be served by a landfill with sufticient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? No ImDact The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along several hundred feet of stream bank and will not result in any impact to landfills. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact The project does not propose activities that will significantly impact solid waste services or facilities. The project will not conflict with any statutes or regulations. The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along several hundred feet of stream bank. This issue is not applicable to the project. V. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following are Mandatory Findings of Significance in accordance with Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines. 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? No Imuact. Based on evaluations and discussions contained in the Initial Study the proposed project has limited potential to degrade the quality of the environment. The proposed project will not significantly affect the environment. 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.) No Impact. The proposed project will not have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. Given that project impacts are insignificant, cumulative impacts are not foreseen. e) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Impact. The proposed project does not have the potential to significantly adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly. 26 Rev. 07/03/02 EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Highway Mapping Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. California Department of Fish and Game. 2004 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) California Department of Transportation 1999 California State Scenic http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/landArch/scenic highwavs/index.htm Carlsbad, City of 2004 Zoning Map. November 18. http://www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us/planning/zonemappdf/zonell xl7.pdf 2004 1999 http://www.sandag.cog.ca.us/whats_new/publications/environmentl/ mhcp-carlsbad-toc. pdf Web page viewed March 7,2005. San Diego Regional Airport Authority 2004 ameded. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board 2002 http://www. waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego/programs/303dlis~isted%20 Waterbodies-2002 .pdf Web page viewed March 15,2005 Web page viewed March 7,2005., (Unofficial) General Plan Land Use Map Habitat Management Plan. December, with Addendum. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, McClellan-Palomar Airport, Carlsbad, CA. October 4, as Table of Listed Waterbodies for 2002 27 Rev. 07/03/02