Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-04-04; Planning Commission; Resolution 62661 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6266 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION 4 MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO PERMANENTLY AUTHORIZE THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WERE CONSTRUCTED TO REPAIR THE DAMAGED SLOPE 6 AND DRAINAGE SYSTEM THAT WERE COMPLETED UNDER AN EMERGENCY COASTAL DEVELOPMENT 7 PERMIT. NO FURTHER WORK IS PROPOSED: THE PROJECT IS WITHIN THE CITY'S COASTAL ZONE 8 GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE EASTERN AND 9 WESTERN EDGE OF THE SOUTH BOUND LANE OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD (HIGHWAY 101) BETWEEN THE 10 WESTERN TERMINUS OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD AND SOLAMAR DRIVE WITHIN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF 11 THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (LCP) AND LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 22. 12 CASE NAME: CARLSBAD BOULEVARD SLOPE AND 13 DRAINAGE REPAIR CASE NO.: CDP 05-50 14 WHEREAS, City of Carlsbad, "Owner/Developer," has filed a verified ,, application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by City of Carlsbad and the 17 State of California Parks & Recreation, "Owners," described as 18 Public right-of-way, and the face of the bluff, adjacent to South Carlsbad Beach State Park and Carlsbad Boulevard, south of Palomar Airport Road and north of Solamar Drive, City of 2Q Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California 21 ("the Property"); and 22 WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with 23 said project; and 24 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 4th day of April 2007, hold a 25 duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request;»and 26 ~7 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 28 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors 2 I relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning <- Commission as follows: 6 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 7 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, according to Exhibits "NOI" 9 dated August 29, 2006, and "PII" dated July 10, 2006, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: 10 Findings: 11 1« 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: 13 a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Carlsbad Boulevard Slope and Drainage Repair - CDP 05-50, the 14 environmental impacts therein identified for this project, and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and Ig' b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines 17 and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and 18 | c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and 20 d. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 21 Conditions: 22 „„ 1. Developer shall implement or cause the implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 24 2. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold 25 harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney's fees incurred by the City arising, 27 directly or indirectly, from the City's approval and issuance of this Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, (b) City's approval 28 or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or nondiscretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all PCRESONO.6266 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City's approval is not validated. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of April 2007, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Dominguez, Douglas, Montgomery, Segall and Whitton NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Cardosa ABSTAIN: JULIE CARLSS ATTEST: Chairperson ANNING COMMISSION DON NEU Planning Director PCRESONO.6266 -3- dl Carlsbad Planning Department L 1 0 Gregory J. Smith, Recorder/County Clerk AUG 3 0 2006 Carlsbad Sloe and Drainage RepairCASE NAME: CASE NO: * ,._____ PROJECT LOCATION: Along the easte-rn and western edge of the south bound lane DopfTY Carlsbad Boulevard (Hwy 101) between the western terminus of Palomar Airport Road and Solamar Drive. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The coastal bluff and drainage system, along the western edge of the south bound lane of Carlsbad Blvd. (Hwy 101) between the western terminus of Palomar Airport Road and Solamar Drive, had been damaged in early March 2005 as a result of storm water runoff that had undermined and washed out portions of the storm drain system and undercut a small section of the south bound lane of Carlsbad Boulevard and threatened portions of the existing old road which is no w used for pedestrian and bike traffic. At least two storm drain inlet boxes and the attendant inlet and outlet pipes failed and were deposited on the slope: In addition, six separate areas of the bluff face, with varying widths, lengths and depths also washed out as a result of storm water runoff. Erosion gullies were back filled with imported soil and the drainage system was repaired. PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project "as revised" may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Director. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated 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 30 days of the date of this notice. The proposed project and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Pam Drew in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4644. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD August 29. 2006 through September 28. 25MD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLER PUBLISH DATE ' ""~ August 29. 2006 San Diego County on __MGJ 0 2006 Posted A"" '" ' " Returned to agency on Deputy 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 » (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 « www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us City of Carlsbad Planning Department CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CARLSBAD SLOPE AND DRAINAGE REPAIR CDP 05-50 andAlong the eastern and western edge of the south bound lane of Carlsbad Boulevard (Hwy 101) between the western terminus of Palomar Airport Road and Solamar Drive. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The coastal bluff and drainage system, along the western edge of the south bound lane of Carlsbad Blvd. (Hwy 101) between the western terminus of Palomar Airport Road and Solamar Drive, had been damaged in early March 2005 as a result of storm water runoff that had undermined and washed out portions of the storm drain system and undercut a small section of the south bound lane of Carlsbad Boulevard and threatened portions of the existing old road which is now used for pedestrian and bike traffic. At least two storm drain inlet boxes and the attendant inlet and outlet pipes failed and were deposited on the slope. In addition, six separate areas of the bluff face, with varying widths, lengths and depths also washed out as a result of storm water runoff. Erosion gullies were back filled with imported soil and the drainage system was repaired. DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: [X] 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. I | The proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. (Mitigated Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). I | Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: ATTEST: April 4, 2007, pursuant to PC Resolution No. 6266 DON NEU Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - INITIAL STUDY (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CDP 05-50 DATE: July 10. 2006 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Carlsbad Boulevard Slope and Drainage Repair 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue. Carlsbad. CA 92008 , 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Pam Drew. Assistant Planner (760) 602-4644 4. PROJECT LOCATION: Along the eastern and western edge of the south bound lane of Carlsbad Boulevard (Hwy 101) between the western terminus of Palomar Airport Road and Solamar Drive. 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad's Public Works Dept. 1635 Faraday Avenue. Carlsbad. CA 92008 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Open Space (OS) 7. ZONING: Open Space (OS) 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): California Department of Parks and Recreation San Diego Coast District. 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The coastal bluff and drainage system, along the western edge of the south bound lane of Carlsbad Blvd. (Hwy 101) between the western terminus of Palomar Airport Road and Solamar Drive, had been damaged in early March 2005 as a result of heavy rains and storm water runoff. The storm water undermined and washed out portions of the storm drain system and undercut a small section of the south bound lane of Carlsbad Boulevard and threatened portions of the existing old road, which is now used for pedestrian and bike traffic. At least two storm drain inlet boxes and the attendant inlet and outlet pipes failed and were deposited on the slope. In addition, six separate areas of the bluff face, with varying widths, lengths and depths also washed out as a result of storm water runoff (for exact location and dimensions see the report titled Preliminary 1 Rev. 02/22/06 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation. Repair of Distressed Slopes Terminus of Palomar Airport Road and Old Pacific Coast Highway Carlsbad, California dated March 15, 2005 by Geopacifica Geotechnical Consultants). As a result of the damage caused by storm water runoff the city of Carlsbad issued an emergency Coastal Development Permit (CDP) June 8, 2005 and the bluff face was back filled with imported soil and the drainage system was repaired. The repair work included regrading to redirect the storm water away from the bluff into two new storm drain lines. In addition to the new storm drain system, the asphalt area just east of the bluff (which is an old section of Hwy 101 that has been abandoned for vehicle traffic) was stripped of asphalt. This area was hydro-seeded with a native annual palette and the disturbed bluff area was hydro-seeded with a bluff scrub/coastal sage scrub palette. The work areas to the west and east of the south bound lane of Carlsbad Blvd. are within the City's public right-of-way and have a General Plan and Zoning designation of Open Space (OS). However, the bluff face is within the boundaries of the State of California and a portion is within South Carlsbad State Beach, which is one of California Department of Parks and Recreation San Diego Coast District's holdings. Rev. 02/22/06 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality /\ Biological Resources Cultural Resources XI Geology/Soils Noise Hazards/Hazardous Materials LJ Population and Housing Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Mandatory Findings of Significance Public Services Recreation Transportation/Circulation Utilities & Service Systems Rev. 02/22/06 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. A J Planner Signature ^\ ^ ( / Date Planning Director's Signature Date Rev. 02/22/06 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 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-Initial Study", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but all 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. Rev. 02/22/06 • 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-Initial'Study 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 after each related set of questions. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 02/22/06 AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact a-d) No Impact. The project involved the short-term use of construction equipment within the public right-of-way area during the removal and replacement of damaged storm drain pipes and structures and during the fill of erosion gullies on the bluff and did not have an adverse impact on a scenic vista. Carlsbad Blvd. is a scenic resource and the project was designed to replace the at grade drainage inlets and below grade storm drain pipes and, therefore, did not damage scenic resources or degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The bluff face and top of bluff were hydro-seeded with a native seed mixture to replace the vegetation that was washed down the bluff face due to the storm water runoff. No sources of light or glare were proposed with the project. Therefore, the Carlsbad Slope and Drainage Repair Project did not result in any significant aesthetic impacts. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially' Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact Rev. 02/22/06 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? a-c) No Impact. There are no farmlands or property under Williamson Act contract within or near the project site. The removal and replacement of damaged storm drain pipes and structures in the public right-of-way and filling of erosion gullies on the bluff did not have an impact to any agricultural resources. 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: 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? c) 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)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Rev. 02/22/06 a) No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a state non-attainment area for ozone (O3) and for participate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM,0). 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 (ARE) 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-1996. The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city's and the County's general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. Section 15125(B) of the State of California Environmental 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: • 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 regional air quality plan and did not conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is at Camp Pendleton. Data available for this monitoring site from 2000 through December 2004 indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (a total of 10 days during the 5-year period). No other violations of any air quality standards have been recorded during the 5-year time period. The project did involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and construction. Such emissions were minimized through standard construction measures such as the use of properly tuned equipment and watering the site for dust control. Although short-term air pollutant emissions were associated with the project, they neither result in the violation of any air quality standard (comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contributed substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact was assessed as less than significant. Rev. 02/22/06 c) Less Than Significant Impact. The air basin is currently in a state non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The project did represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the project were minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the project was implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a)(4), the project's contribution to the cumulative impact was considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. d) No impact. As noted above, the project did 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) No Impact. The construction of the project may have generated fumes from the operation of construction equipment, which may have been considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure was short-term or transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not considered substantial. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or • regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? 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? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 10 Rev. 02/22/06 f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? a&c) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project involved the removal and replacement of damaged storm drain pipes and structures in the public right-of-way and filling of erosion gullies on the bluff. According to the biology survey prepared by RECON Environmental, Inc., dated May 10, 2006, the disturbed area includes 0.04 acres of coastal bluff scrub, 0.6 acres of disturbed land (previously paved) and 0.2 acres of ornamental vegetation. Consistent with the City of Carlsbad's Habitat Management Plan (HMP) required mitigation for the loss of 0.04 acres of coastal bluff scrub is replacement at a 3:1 ratio for a total of 0.12 acres. The City hydro-seeded 0.24 acres with a bluff scrub/coastal sage scrub palette on the bluff and a native annual palette for the bluff top (regraded road area that was previously paved and had no vegetation on it). Therefore, by implementing the mitigation measures for hydro-seeding potential environmental impacts were reduced to a level of insignificance. b, d, e, & f) No Impact. The project did not 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. The project is consistent with the preservation and mitigation requirements of the City's Habitat Management Plan (HMP), which is used as a standard of review for biological impacts. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a). Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeo logical resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique pale ontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 11 Rev. 02/22/06 a&b) No Significance. No significant historical or archeological resources are located in the project area, therefore, the Carlsbad Blvd. Slope and Drainage Repair project did not result in any significant change in the significance of a historical or archeological resource. c) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project site was surveyed and a surface collection conducted and artifacts mapped prior to any repair work (see Archaeological Survey Report by Cynthia Hernandez, Archaeological Project Leader California State Parks San Diego Coast District, dated December 12, 2005 -.South Coast Highway 101 Flood Repair, Palomar Airport Rd., City of Carlsbad, California - South Carlsbad State Beach). Because the cliffs eroded due to heavy rains and storm water runoff, which exposed archaeological sites, there is no required mitigation for cultural resources; however, the filling of the gullies that were created due to storm water runoff will protect the artifacts. In addition, the cultural resources were mapped and documented by the California State Parks archaeologists prior to the start of the repair work. Implementation of these mitigation measures reduced the potential environmental impact to cultural resources to a level of insignificance. d) No Significance. The project site does not contain any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries; therefore the Carlsbad Boulevard Slope and Drainage Repair project did not result in any significant impacts to human remains. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 12 Rev. 02/22/06 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? 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? a i-iv, c, d & e) No Impact. The project included the repair of eroded coastal bluffs. The earthwork did not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects as a result of fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, or landslides. In addition, the soil is not unstable or expansive and did not create substantial risks to life or property and no septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems were a part of this project. Therefore, the Carlsbad Boulevard Slope and Drainage Repair project did not result in any significant impacts. b) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The site was regraded to slope eastward away from the bluff. Therefore, storm water runoff will be directed into a below grade drains rather than over the coastal bluffs. The project is subject to the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES), as well as the City of Carlsbad's Grading Ordinance. In addition, according to the biological survey prepared by RECON Environmental, Inc., dated May 10, 2006, as part of the Best Management Practice (BMP) requirements, the coastal bluff scrub, ornamental, and disturbed areas that were impacted have been hydro-seeded with native species. The coastal bluff scrub and ornamental impact areas along the bluff have been hydro-seeded with a coastal bluff scrub hydro-seed mix. The bare soil under the pavement along the top of the bluff has been hydro-seeded with a native annual hydro-seed mix. Restoration of the impacted areas will be considered successful when the hydro-seeded areas germinate with native species and achieve ten percent cover within six months and 20 percent cover within one year of hydro-seed application. The first application of hydro-seed did not succeed due to the below average rainfall, therefore, the area will be hydro-seeded again during the rainy season of 2006 using the same seed mix. Therefore, by implementing the mitigation measures for hydro-seeding the disturbed areas any potential environmental impacts would be reduced to a level of insignificance. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant' Impact No Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 13 Rev. 02/22/06 c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) 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? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? a-h) No Impact. The project did not involve the routine transport, use, disposal, or release of any hazardous materials, nor did the project create a significant hazard to the public or environment by releasing hazardous materials into the environment. The project site is not within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school or within two miles of an airport, nor is it included in the list of hazardous materials sites. The work was completed within the public right-of-way and bluff area and adjacent streets remained open to traffic, therefore, no impacts to emergency response or emergency evacuation plans occurred. Given the above, the Carlsbad Boulevard Slope and Drainage Repair project did not result in any significant impacts adverse environmental impacts due to hazards or hazardous materials. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 14 Rev. 02/22/06 b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) 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? d) 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? e) 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? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) 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? h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) 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? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 15 Rev. 02/22/06 a) No Impact. The drainage project has been deemed to comply with all federal, state and local water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act, California Administrative Code Title 23, and specific basin plan objectives identified in the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin. In addition, the proposed project is subject to the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and the City's Grading Ordinance, therefore, no waste or pollutant discharge or substantial erosion and run off occurred and Best Management Practices (BMPs) were utilized. Consistent with these requirements the project was graded to reduce runoff and erosion of the coastal bluff and all areas were hydro-seeded to mitigate erosion. b) No Impact. The project did not use any ground water; therefore, there were no impacts to depletion of any existing aquifer or ground water table level, nor any impacts to groundwater quality. c-f) No Impact. The Carlsbad Boulevard Slope and Drainage Repair project improved the existing drainage system by redirecting storm water runoff away from the bluff and into a new drainage inlet basin; therefore, the project improved the stability and safety of the bluff and reduced the threat of flooding in surrounding areas by diverting the storm water runoff into a central location. Therefore, the project did not significantly alter the drainage pattern of the site nor did it create or contribute to increased erosion or runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems, nor degrade the water quality. The project area is not within the 100-year floodplain, and the area is not subject to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow impacts. Therefore, no significant adverse environmental impacts associated with hydrology and water quality occurred as a result of the project. g-h) No Impact. The project did not include the placement of housing or other structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows within a flood hazard area. The project does substantially improve the storm water flow by improving the storm drain lines. In addition, the regrading of the slope area to allow the storm water to be conveyed away from the bluff and into a swale that drains into a new storm drain system helps protect the bluff from erosion. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts due to placement of structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. i-j) No Impact. No levee or dam exists onsite or downstream of the project. The project did not result in increased exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam or inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Therefore, no significant adverse environmental impacts associated with dams, seiche, tsunami or mudflow occurred as a result of the Carlsbad Boulevard Slope and Drainage Repair project. IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 16 Rev. 02/22/06 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? a-c) No Impact. No land use changes are proposed with the project, therefore no division or impact to existing communities or land uses resulted from this project. The Carlsbad Boulevard Slope and Drainage Repair project is consistent with all applicable land use plans. The project did involve the removal of a small amount of habitat listed in the City's Habitat Management Plan, however, as mentioned under Biological Resources, the city is mitigating for the habitat removed during the project. Therefore, the Carlsbad Boulevard Slope and Drainage Repair project did not produce any significant adverse impacts to land use and planning. X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 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? a & b) No Impact. The project site does not contain any known mineral resources of future value to the State of California. In addition, the site is not designated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, the Carlsbad Boulevard Slope and Drainage Repair project did not produce any significant adverse impacts to mineral resources. XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d)inA substantial temporary or periodic increase ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 17 Rev. 02/22/06 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? a-0 No Impact. The project involved filling erosion gullies with imported soil and repairing the damaged drainage system, which included two new storm drain lines. The construction activities did produce noise from the operation of construction equipment. However, the noise impacts from the project were minimal due to the close proximity of the project to the busy Carlsbad Blvd. In addition, all construction activities were subject to the City's construction noise regulations, which preclude construction after sunset on any day, before seven (7) a.m. Monday through Friday, before eight (8) a.m. on Saturday, and on Sundays and holidays. The construction activities, and the noise generated from these activities were short-term in nature and no permanent noise sources were proposed with the project. Therefore, by implementing the City's noise regulations no construction noise was generated outside the time frame stated above. In addition, the project did not result in any activity that would generate excessive groundbourne vibration, or groundbourne noise levels, nor did the project create a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or the vicinity of a private airstrip, therefore, the project did not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Given the above, no significant adverse impacts due to noise occurred as a result of the Carlsbad Boulevard Slope and Drainage Repair project. Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 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? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? a-c) No Impact. The project involved filling erosion gullies with imported soil and repairing the damaged drainage system, which included two new storm drain lines to an existing storm water drainage system, therefore, the project did not induce substantial growth either directly or indirectly. No housing exists within the project area, therefore, no displacement of housing or people occurred. Given the above, the project did not produce any significant adverse impacts to population and housing. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 18 Rev. 02/22/06 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 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?. v) Other public facilities? a, i-v) No Impact. The project involved filling erosion gullies with imported soil and repairing the damaged storm water drainage system, which included two new storm drain lines to an existing storm water drainage system and did not involve any construction or development that would require any additional provisions of public services such as fire or police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities. The project did not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities. Given the above, the project did not produce any significant adverse impacts to public services. Less Than Significant No Impact Impact XIV. RECREATION Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 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? 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? 19 Rev. 02/22/06 a&b) No Impact. The project involved filling erosion gullies with imported soil and repairing the damaged storm water drainage system on the bluff face and to the east of the bluff; therefore, no increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities was part of this project. Therefore, the Carlsbad Boulevard Slope and Drainage Repair project did not cause any significant adverse impacts to recreation. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than .Significant Impact No Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) 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)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 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? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in insufficient parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn- outs, bicycle racks)? a) No Impact. The project generated 0 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and 0 peak hour trips except for the temporary construction traffic during the Carlsbad Boulevard Slope and Drainage Repair project. This temporary construction traffic utilized Carlsbad Boulevard and Palomar Airport Road. The 2005 peak hour level of service at the arterial intersection to the north of the project is between 6,400 ADT (north bound) and 7,300 ADT (south bound) on Carlsbad Boulevard and 6,300 ADT on west bound Palomar Airport Road. The design capacity of the arterial roads affected by the proposed project, are 20,000 to 40,000 ADT for Carlsbad Boulevard (2005) and 40,000 for Palomar Airport Road. The project did not increase the ADT's at the site; therefore, the project represented 0% and 0% of the existing traffic volume and the design capacity respectively. The project did not, therefore, cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. Therefore, the project did not cause an increase in traffic or congestion at intersections. 20 Rev. 02/22/06 b) - • No Impact. SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is: Existing ADT* LOS Buildout ADT* Rancho Santa Fe Road 17-35 ' "A-D" 35-56 El Camino Real 27-49 "A-C" 33-62 Palomar Airport Road 10-57 "A-D" 30-73 SR78 124-142 "F" 156-180 1-5 199-216 "D" 260-272 * The numbers are in thousands of daily trips. The Congestion Management Program's (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is "E", or LOS "F" if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS "F" in 1990). Accordingly, all designated roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS. Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region's general and community plans. The project is consistent with the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was used in modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) "E" standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short-term and at buildout. No Impact. The project does not include any aviation components. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. It did not, therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed. d) No Impact. All project improvements were designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore, did not result'in design hazards. The project is consistent with the City's general plan and zoning. Therefore, it did not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed. e) No Impact. The project had been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. No impact assessed. i) No Impact. The project did not request a parking variance, nor did it eliminate any parking spaces. No impact assessed. g) No Impact. The Carlsbad Boulevard Slope and Drainage Repair project is partially within the boundaries of the public right-of-way and the storm water pipes were buried below grade level. In addition, the top and face of the bluff had erosion gullies that were filled in; therefore, the project did not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Therefore, the project did not cause any significant adverse impacts to alternative transportation. 21 Rev. 02/22/06 XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 22 Rev. 02/22/06 a& b) No Impact. The subject site is partially within the boundaries of the public right-of-way and the storm water pipes were buried below grade level and the top and face of the bluff had erosion gullies that were filled in; therefore, the project did not create an increase in wastewater, nor did the project create any new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, the project did not impact wastewater treatment. c) No Impact. The project involved filling erosion gullies with imported soil and repairing the damaged storm water drainage system on the bluff face and to the east of the bluff. This project did improve the storm water drainage in the area and, therefore, did not impact the storm water drainage facilities. d) No Impact. The project did not require water supplies since no development was planned and no restroom facilities exist in this area. Therefore, the project did not impact the water supplies. e-g) No Impact. The project did not need any wastewater treatment facilities since there is no restroom facility at the impacted area and therefore, the proposed project did not cause an increase in solid waste. The project had no impact on solid waste collection and disposal, and did comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Less Than Significant No Impact Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumula- tively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 23 Rev. 02/22/06 a) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project involved the removal and replacement of damaged storm drain pipes and structures in the public right-of-way and filling of erosion gullies on the bluff. The disturbed area includes 0.04 acres of coastal bluff scrub, 0.6 acres of disturbed land (previously paved) and 0.2 acres of ornamental vegetation. Consistent with the City of Carlsbad's Habitat Management Plan (HMP) required mitigation for the loss of 0.04 acres of coastal bluff scrub is replacement at a 3:1 ratio for a total of 0.12 acres. The City hydro-seeded 0.24 acres with a bluff scrub/coastal sage scrub palette on the bluff and a native annual palette for the bluff top (regraded road area that was previously paved and had no vegetation on it). In addition, the site was regraded to slope eastward away from the bluff. Therefore, storm water runoff will be directed into a below grade drains rather than over the coastal bluffs. The project is subject to the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES), as well as the City of Carlsbad's Grading Ordinance. In addition, the cultural resources were mapped and documented by the California State Parks archaeologists prior to the start of the repair work. Implementation of these mitigation measures reduced the potential environmental impacts to habitat, wildlife and California history and prehistory to a level of insignificance. b & c) No impact. The storm water repair project did not have any cumulative impacts and did not affect or propose any standard that would adversely affect people either directly or indirectly. Therefore, it has been determined that there are no impacts associated with cumulative impacts or impacts on humans. XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures: For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 24 Rev. 02/22/06 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. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. 2. City of Carlsbad General Plan, Circulation Element Open Space and Conservation Element, Parks and Recreation Element. City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 3. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. City of Carlsbad Planning Department, November 2004. 4. Letter Report from Nicole Bailey, Biologist, RECON Environmental Inc. regarding, "Results of the Biological Survey for Carlsbad Boulevard Repair Project, Work Order No. 06-023 (RECON Number 4291B)." May 10,2006. 5. Archaeological Survey Report from Cynthia Hernandez, Archaeological Project Leader, California State Parks San Diego Coast District regarding, "South Coast Highway 101 Flood Repair, Palomar Airport Rd., City of Carlsbad, California (South Carlsbad State Beach)." December 12, 2005. 6. Growth Management Plan 2005 Traffic Monitoring Program, City of Carlsbad, November 29, 2005. 7. SANDAG 2030 City/County Forecast. Series 10 North County Model Base 2005 Forecast, City of Carlsbad. 8. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation, Repair of Distressed Slopes terminus of Palomar Airport Road and Old Pacific Coast Highway Carlsbad. California. Geopacifica Geotechnical Consultants, March 15,2005. 25 Rev. 02/22/06 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES Biological Resources 1. The applicant shall Hydro-seed the bluff face and top of bluff with hydro-seed mix as shown in Table 3 & 4 of RECON's biology survey dated May 10, 2006. The hydro-seed mix will be applied during the rainy season to increase the chances of germination of the hydro-seed mixture. The bluff will be hydro-seeded to mitigate for the disturbed areas that were impacted by the rainfall and the repair work to the infrastructure. The hydro-seed will help with erosion control and mitigate for any loss of native species. The bluff face will be hydro-seeded with a coastal bluff scrub hydro-seed mix and the top of the bluff will be hydro- seeded with a native annual hydro-seed mix. The restoration of the impacted areas will be considered successful when the hydro-seeded areas germinate with native species and achieve ten percent coverage within six months and 20 percent coverage within one year of hydro-seed application. A monitoring program will be implemented by the City's Public Works Maintenance Department to verify the success of the restoration project. The monitoring report will be submitted to the Planning Department at six months and one year intervals after the hydro-seed application. The monitoring report shall be to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Cultural Resources 2. The project site was surveyed for historical and archeological resources, a surface collection conducted and cultural resources were mapped and documented by the California State Parks archaeologists prior to any repair work in the area (see Archaeological Survey Report by Cynthia Hernandez, Archaeological Project Leader California State Parks San Diego Coast District, dated December 12, 2005 - South Coast Highway 101 Flood Repair, Palomar Airport Rd., City of Carlsbad, California - South Carlsbad State Beach). The filling of the gullies that were created on the bluff face by the storm water runoff will protect the remaining archaeological artifacts that surfaced during the erosion on the bluffs. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date / / Signature Marshall Plantz, Senior Civil Engineer 26 Rev. 02/22/06 FILE NUMBERS: CDP 05-50 Page 1 of 1 PROJECT NAME: CARLSBAD SLOPE AND DRAINAGE REPAIR APPROVAL DATE: The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). Mitigation Measure The disturbed area includes 0.04 acres of coastal bluff scrub, 0.6 acres of disturbed land (previously paved) and 0.2 acres of ornamental vegetation. Consistent with the City of Carlsbad's Habitat Management Plan (HMP) required mitigation for the loss of 0.04 acres of coastal bluff scrub is replacement at a 3:1 ratio for a total of 0.12 acres. The City will hydro-seed 0.24 acres with a bluff scrub/coastal sage scrub palette on the bluff and a native annual palette for the bluff top (regraded road area that was previously paved and had no vegetation on it). Prior to any work starting in the area, the project site was surveyed for historical and archeological resources, a surface collection conducted and cultural resources were mapped and documented by the California State Parks archaeologists. The remaining artifacts were covered with soil, which will protect them from further erosion. Mitigation Procedure Ensure that the impacted area is hydro-seeded during the rainy season (December through March). Ensure the cultural resources have been well documented and all remaining cultural resources buried and undisturbed. Monitoring Type; Monitoring Department ; Project; Public Works Planning Director to assure Associate State Archaeologist with the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation completes work on documenting cultural resources. Mitigation Timing During the rainy season. Prior to any construction work at the site. Monitoring and Reporting .- Procedure Planning Director to confirm implementation of measure by site visit and review of monitoring report at 6 months and 12 months intervals after application of hydro-seed mix. Planning Director confirmed State archaeologist surveyed, mapped and collected cultural resources. Verified Implementation Completed cultural survey, mapping and collecting of cultural resources per Archaeological Survey Report by Cynthia Hernandez, cu-vi fofUee-o" * A.-£. -> 1 fii6< Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. information. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation =When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other RD -Appendix P. WORTH BOUffa CARLSBAD BOULEVARD CARLSBAD BOULEVARD •~SrreNaNm»Iris; ^^ REVISION DESCRIPTION fROVAl.PHOVM. •AS BUILT' REVIEWED BY' INSPECTOR DATE s"^! I CITY OF CARLSBADII8**15 || ENGIKEERIW] DEPARTMENT || GRADMO PLUO FOR: CARLSBAD BOULEVARDSLOPE AMD DRAINAGE REPAIRS gas— iic^nc^vir"™o~°- EBlvd Slope einci FRopairs -S^^®E^^^^^^^^£^^:I^:'?^:^. ;-. ^fe^^rs&^i'^ x:-v^