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