Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-04-18; Planning Commission; Resolution 62791 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6279 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO WIDEN AND 4 IMPROVE AN APPROXIMATELY 280-FOOT LENGTH OF EL - CAMINO REAL BEGINNING JUST NORTHWEST OF COUGAR DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 6 ZONE 15. CASE NAME: WIDENING OF EL CAMINO REAL 7 CASE NO.: SUP 06-15 8 WHEREAS, City of Carlsbad, "Developer," has filed a verified application with 9 the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by City of Carlsbad, Terraces at Sunny Creek, 10 and Mabel L. Barber Trustee/Barber Trust 04-06-90, "Owners," described as 11 A portion of lot "B" of Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according 13 to map thereof No. 823, filed in the office of the County Recorder of said San Diego County, November 16 1896; and , a 14 portion of lot 70 of Carlsbad Tract No. 96-02 (The Terraces at Sunny Creek), in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, * -> State of California, according to map thereof No. 14060, filed , , in the office of the County Recorder of said San Diego County, October 27,2000 17 ("the Property"); and 18 WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with 2Q said project; and 21 WHEREAS, as part of the public review of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, 22 the City received comments from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and California 23 Department of Fish and Game; and 24 WHEREAS, as part of its response to the comments, staff has made minor 25 revisions to the Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Initial Study (EIA Part II) to26 27 correct the amount of disturbed land impact, provide a more complete project disclosure, 28 and clarify the project would not impact any thread-leaved brodiaea; and WHEREAS, the minor changes to the EIA Part II do not require 2 recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration since they are consistent with the 3 description of "new information" in CEQA Section 15073.5(c) (4), which states 4 c recirculation is not required if "new information is added to the negative declaration which 6 merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative 7 declaration"; and WHEREAS, the minor revisions to the EIA Part II are shown as either 9 strikeouts or are bolded and underlined. The EIA Part II and the comments received and 10 staffs responses are attached; and 11 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of April 2007, hold a 13 duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 14 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony l^ and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors 17 relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 18 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning 20 Commission as follows: 21 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 22 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Exhibit "ND," dated April 18,,2007, according to Exhibits "NOI" dated January 30, 24 2007, and "PH" dated March 13, 2007, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: 25 Findings;26 27 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: 28 a. It has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Widening of El PC RESO NO. 6279 -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 Camino Real - SUP 06-15, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project, and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and b. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and c. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and d. Based on the EIA Part II, as revised, 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 18th day of April, 2007, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Dominguez, Douglas, Segall and Whitton ABSENT: Commissioners Cardosa and Montgomery ABSTAIN: JULIE CARLS ATTEST: , Chairperson ANNING COMMISSION DON NEU Planning Director PC RESO NO. 6279 -3- City of Carlsbad Planning Department MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: El Camino Real Widening SUP 06-15 El Camino Real, just northwest of Cougar Drive PROJECT DESCRIPTION: City project to remove existing temporary street improvements and install permanent street and sidewalk improvements along a 280-foot long stretch of El Camino Real, just northwest of Cougar Drive. Project would also grade a steep slope to achieve a suitable street grade and an adjacent 2:1 landscaped slope. The project has a total construction area of approximately 0.20 acre. Most improvements proposed, such as the widening and sidewalk, would occur where the existing steep slope would be removed, an area about 110 feet long. Proposed improvements include the modification of existing traffic control signs and street markings along and to the north and south of the construction area. DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: IXI 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 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). [~~| 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: April 18. 2007. pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 6280 ATTEST: .iLrL DONNEU Assistant Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us City of Carlsbad Planning Department NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: El Camino Real Widening SUP 06-15 East side of El Camino Real PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Project involves removal of existing temporary street improvements and installation of permanent street and sidewalk improvements along a 280-foot long stretch of El Camino Real, just west of Cougar Drive. Improvements include grading of a small, steep slope, adding paving, sidewalk, curb and gutter, and landscaping. Presently, a steep cut slope extends into a portion of the proposed street widening; project grading would remove this steep slope to achieve a suitable street grade and an adjacent 2:1 landscaped slope. The project has a total area of approximately 0.20 acre. Most improvements proposed, such as the widening and sidewalk, would occur where the existing steep slope would be removed, an area about 110 feet long. Planned construction would transition on each end to existing, fully improved portions of El Camino Real. PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project "as revised" may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission. A copy of the initial study (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. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Scott Donnell in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4618. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD January 30. 2007 through March 1. 2007 PUBLISH DATE January 30. 2007 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - INITIAL STUDY (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: SUP 06-15 DATE: March 13 January 21 2007 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: EL CAMINO REAL WIDENING 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Scott Donnell. Associate Planner. T760) 602- 4618 4. PROJECT LOCATION: Along the east side of El Camino Real, extending from near the northeast corner of El Camino Real and Cougar Drive to approximately 280 feet northwest. 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad Engineering Department, c/o Eva Plajzer. 1635 Faradav Avenue. Carlsbad. CA 92008 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential High Density/General Commercial/Office (RH/C/O): Residential Medium Density (RM) 7. ZONING: Limited Control (L-C); Residential Density-Multiple (RD-MT) 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): None 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: Project involves removal of existing temporary street improvements and installation of permanent street and sidewalk improvements along a 280-foot long stretch of El Camino Real, just northwest of Cougar Drive. Improvements include grading of a small, steep cut slope, adding paving, sidewalk, curb and gutter, and landscaping. Presently, the steep cut slope extends into a portion of the proposed street widening: project grading would remove this steep slope to achieve a suitable street grade and an adjacent 2:1 slope. The project would also remove a temporary asphalt dike that serves as the present road edge to accommodate the widening and improvements. The project has a total area of approximately 0.20 acre. An adjacent. 0.20 acre disturbed area between the area to be graded and Cougar Drive may be used for construction staging and/or contractor parking. This area is flat, highly disturbed and largely without vegetation, and bordered by existing curb, gutter and sidewalk. A standard city requirement specifies that use of the area for parking or staging would require the contractor to restore the site to its pre-construction condition following project completion. Most improvements proposed, such as the widening and sidewalk, would occur where the existing steep slope would be removed, an area about 110 feet long. Planned construction would transition on each end to existing, fully improved portions of El Camino Real. SUP 06-15 1 Rev. 02/22/06 To reflect the addition of a third travel lane that would be provided by the widening, removal and replacement of existing traffic control signs (e.g.. "lane ends merge left") and street, markings (e.g. arrows directing traffic to merge) with appropriate directional information is also proposed. This affects signs and markings along and north and south of the project construction area. The project and the staging area generally occur on city-owned land: however, easements from adjacent property owners are needed to enable slope grading and landscaping. The project site is surrounded by developed areas, including paved roads, sidewalks and driveways, and graded lots. A large office project, which includes widening of El Camino Real and preservation of open space, is under development to the west of the project site. Since the open space preserve, established to protect the thread-leaved brodiaea, is on the west side of El Camino Real, it would not be affected by the project, which is located entirely on the east side of the street. Proposed project improvements would occur on property that has an unimprbved appearance. On-site vegetation and land cover are classified as "developed." "disturbed" and "ornamental" and contain no sensitive species. Below is a vicinity map. VICINITY MAP SUP 06-15 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 X Geology/Soils Noise [~1 Hazards/Hazardous Materials L— I Population and Housing I I Hydrology/Water Quality [ _ | Public Services I I Land Use and Planning [J Mineral Resources Recreation Transportation/Circulation |/\ Mandatory Findings of Significance I I Utilities & Service Systems SUP 06-15 Rev. 02/22/06 fTo be cornpieted'bythe Lead Agency) j I I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, Mid 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. j I I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on <he -environment, -and «n ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I 1 1 find that the proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impacts)" on -die -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 mat remain to be addressed. I I 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, (here 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 eadier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project Therefore, nothing further is required. / - / 7 • o ~7 Date Planning Director's Signature Date 4 Rev.«2/22/Q6 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 Impact No Impact n n n n n n a)-d) No impact. Proposed improvements would enhance the present appearance of the project site, which is characterized by a steep, eroding cut slope, unmaintained landscaping, and incomplete street improvements. The proposal would replace the steep cut slope with a more gentle, landscaped slope and would provide finished street improvements, such as a widened travel lane, curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Project grading and landscaping would occur consistent with the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards. The project site has no scenic resources and would not create a new source of substantial light and glare. 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? 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact n n n Rev. 02/22/06 a)-c) No impact. The project site is not being farmed and is identified as "urban and built up land" according to a state Department of Conservation Important Farmland map dated 2002. Further, it does not have an agricultural zoning nor is it under a Williamson Act contract. 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? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D D D D D D 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 particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PMio). 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-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 Rev. 02/22/06 that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. Widening and improvements to El Camino Real to six-lane, prime arterial standards is anticipated by the General Plan. This project would implement improvements to El Camino Real consistent with the General Plan. 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 will in no way 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 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. It is not expected the project would measurably add capacity or increase traffic on El Camino Real since the project affects only a small stretch of the street and is bordered by already-widened portions of El Camino Real. Therefore, any long-term project emissions associated with project-generated traffic 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) Less Than Significant Impact. The air .basin is currently in a state non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a)(4), the proposed project's contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. d) No impact. The project is adjacent to an elder care home that may have up to 15 residents. However, as noted above, the proposed would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. No impact is assessed. e) No Impact. The construction of the proposed project and vehicles using the widened portion of roadway as a result of the 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. Rev. 02/22/06 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? 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D D D D D D D D a)-c) No impact. Project grading and construction would affect vegetation and ground cover on the project site classified as "ornamental vegetation" "developed land," and "disturbed land." A map identifying these vegetation and ground cover types in relation to project construction is provided as Attachment A at the end of this document. The disturbed land on the project site is classified as Habitat Type F in Table 11 of the City's Habitat Management Plan (HMP) and is characterized by barren ground, weeds, grasses and few native and non- native plants. Further, because of the disturbed and developed nature of the project site and its proximity to El Camino Real and surrounding development, wildlife and native plant species are limited. Due to the location and poor habitat value of all vegetation and groundcover on the project site, project impacts to the vegetation and ground cover on the project site are not considered significant to local, state, and federal agencies. This is supported by the project biologist's survey, which identified no sensitive plant and wildlife species known from the project vicinity on the project site. The biologist's survey and letter report were prepared in 2004; the accuracy of the report was confirmed in a January 2007 field check of the site by the City's staff and 10 Rev. 02/22/06 Preserve Steward. While not considered significant, impacts by city projects to disturb land are required to be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio, as described in f) below. d) Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. Limited, suitable habitat (e.g., eucalyptus trees) for resident and migratory nongame birds is found on the project site and adjacent areas. The potential exists for migratory and resident bird species to be present during the nesting season in the existing nonnative vegetation and trees. Though not observed during field surveys of the project area, raptors are known to inhabit the area because of the nearby foraging habitat. Raptors also could use the eucalyptus trees on the project site and nearby area for nesting. Project grading would remove a row of approximately five eucalyptus trees. To protect native birds (including raptors) as required by the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code, a mitigation measure specifies that direct and indirect project impacts that may harm them are to be avoided between February 1 and August 30, the nesting/breeding season. If construction is contemplated during this time, the measure also requires the applicant to hire a qualified biologist to conduct surveys of suitable nesting habitat within 500 feet of the project area two weeks prior to construction and every two weeks during construction to determine if a nest becomes established and if so what mitigation measures are appropriate. "Construction" includes clearing and grubbing of existing vegetation. Prior to and during construction, the measure additionally requires the applicant to receive confirmation from the biologist that construction may proceed or continue and implement any necessary mitigation measures. e) No impact. The City does not have a policy or ordinance regarding preservation of trees or other unique or special biological resources, with the exception of wildlife and vegetation species as addressed by the City's HMP and as discussed in f) below. f) No impact. The project is consistent with the City's HMP. The document identifies the project site as "development area" and not within any hardline or standards area. Also, as noted in a) - c) above, the project site contains no sensitive habitat or wildlife and as noted in d) includes a mitigation measure to address potential impacts for resident and migratory nongame birds. Furthermore, consistent with the HMP and although not considered significant, permanent and potential temporary impacts to disturbed land (listed as Habitat Type F in HMP Table 11) would be mitigated. Project grading and improvements would permanently remove 0.10 TJH- acre of disturbed land and convert it to a formally landscaped space. Consistent with HMP Table 11, city projects such as this proposal can mitigate permanent disturbed land impacts out of kind and at a 1:1 ratio at Lake Calavera, a 262 acre city-owned site. (Note: This mitigation is listed as part of the project mitigation measures even though it is not needed to mitigate a significant impact.) Table 11 notes the objective with such mitigation is to build the preserve system by combining small mitigation requirements into a larger, contiguous area. Further, if the project contractor proposes to use the city-owned flat area adjacent to the area proposed for grading, temporary impacts to approximately 0.2 acre of disturbed land could result from the temporary parking of vehicles and equipment. As mandated by a standard city requirement, the contractor would be required to restore the affected area to its pre- construction condition. There is no mitigation required for impacts to ornamental vegetation or developed land, the other vegetation and land cover found on the project site. 11 Rev. 02/22/06 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 archeological 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 No Impact Impact D D D D D D D a)-b),d) No impact. The small project area is disturbed and adjacent to El Camino Real and development. Based on its disturbed nature, its steep cut slope and adjacent flat topography, the site was probably graded as part of the original construction or some earlier widening of El Camino Real. The site contains no unique geologic features or structures. A review of city files documenting the presence of archaeological resources in the project vicinity, including review of archaeological studies for projects immediately adjacent to the west (Terraces at Sunny Creek) and south (Fox Miller), reveals no such resources on the project site. These studies, which report on all recorded archaeological sites within a one mile radius, also did not reveal the presence of any human remains. In fact, the study for the Fox Miller project notes archaeological sites in the project vicinity tend to be located within large drainage areas such as Agua Hedionda Creek to the north. c) Potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. Fossils were collected during grading of the Fox- Miller property west of the project site, directly across El Camino Real. The Point Loma foundation, the geologic unit underlying the Fox-Miller property, also underlies the project site. Therefore, there is a potential that fossils could also be found during project grading. A mitigation measure requires a paleontologist to survey the project site and review project plans and prepare a report. If the report concludes fossil resources may be impacted, the mitigation measure requires a paleontologist to direct grading to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts. 12 Rev. 02/22/06 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact D D D D D D D D D D a) i. - ii. Potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated.. The geotechnical evaluation notes the project site is not underlain by known active or potentially active faults, and concludes the potential for ground rupture due to faulting at the site is low. However, the project is in a seismically active region and lurching or cracking of the ground surface as result of nearby seismic events is possible. Accordingly, the evaluation states that the potential for seismic accelerations will need to be considered in the design of proposed structural improvements. A mitigation measure requires the applicant to comply with the geotechnical evaluation's recommendations in the design and construction of project improvements. iii. 13 Rev. 02/22/06 No impact. Liquefaction or seismically induced settlement at the project area is not anticipated to be a design consideration. IV. No impact. No landslides or related features are known to underlie the subject site. b) No impact. The site is disturbed with generally sparse vegetation and a steep, eroding cut slope. Slight project- related erosion could temporarily occur through the removal of the sparse, stabilizing vegetation and exposure of erodible materials onsite through project grading. Grading would affect approximately 0.20 acre and would be subject to standard Best Management Practices (BMPs), such as silt fencing and inlet protection as required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and the City's Grading Ordinance. Operation of the project once completed would not involve activities that might cause soil erosion. Furthermore, replacement of the steep, eroded road cut with a 2:1 landscaped slope along the project's El Camino Real frontage would improve erosion control. c)-d) No impact. The evaluation does not indicate the project site is unstable as it exists or would become unstable because of the project. The evaluation does not identify the project site as having expansive soils or being prone, either with or without the project, to landslide, lateral spreading, or other instability on or off-site. The project would not result in a building or future buildable area. Overall, the geotechnical evaluation notes that there are no geotechnical constraints that would preclude construction of the proposed project provided consideration is given to the evaluation's recommendations and appropriate construction practices are followed. A mitigation measure requires 'compliance with the reports recommendations. e) No impact. The project would not generate any wastewater and would not require sewer or septic systems. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 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? 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 D D D D 14 Rev. 02/22/06 d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of I I I I I I 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 I I I I I I 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, I I I 1 I I 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 I I I I I I an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of I I I I I I loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? a)-c) No impact. The project does not involve or propose the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The project also would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. d) No impact. e) No impact. The project is located within the Airport Influence Area and the Flight Activity Zone of McClellan- Palomar Airport. However, the project site is approximately 0.75 mile from the nearest airport boundary and project construction and use would not involve any features that might pose a safety risk to airplanes or people residing or working in the area. f) No impact. The project is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip. i_, g) No impact. By widening a small portion of El Camino Real and installing a sidewalk, the project should assist with emergency evacuation plans. h) No impact. As a project proposing improvements to an existing street, the project itself would not expose people to a significant wildfire risk. The project site is located in a mostly developed area and is not adjacent to any significant wildlands. 15 Rev. 02/22/06 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 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 No Impact Impact D D D D D D D D D D D 16 Rev. 02/22/06 La) No impact. Project grading would affect an approximately 0.2 acre area. To protect water quality, the project would employ Best Management Practices (BMPs), such as silt fencing and inlet protection as required by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and the City's Grading Ordinance. Operation of the project would not involve activities that might negatively affect water quality. Furthermore, replacement of the steep, eroded road cut with a 2:1 landscaped slope along the project's El Camino Real frontage would improve water quality. The project would generate no waste. b) No impact. The project would not use groundwater and none was encountered in a boring test on the project site. The project would not significantly alter drainage patterns that might contribute to groundwater recharge. Generally, Carlsbad is served by imported water and not groundwater. c)-e) No impact. The project would largely maintain existing drainage patterns and would provide curb and gutter, catch basin and drainage pipe improvements to connect with existing, adjacent improvements. Further, proposed grading and landscaping of the existing, eroding, and unimproved cut slope would decrease erosion and siltation. Because of the small project area, implementation of the project would not result in flooding. No impact. As noted in a) above, the project would employ erosion control measures to protect water quality and grading of the existing steep cut slope to a gentler, landscaped slope would also improve water quality. g)-h) No impact. The project, which proposes no housing, is in Flood Zone X, which is outside the 100-year floodplain. i) No impact. There are no dams, creeks, or other water bodies that could potentially flood the project site. j) No impact. The project is approximately 250 feet above sea level and over two miles from the nearest water body, Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The geotechnical evaluation for the project does not note any geotechnical constraints that would preclude project construction. IX. LAND USE 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? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated D D D D Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D 17 Rev. 02/22/06 a)-c) No impact. El Camino Real is an established prime arterial with existing significant traffic flows. As a road widening and improvement project along a small portion of this existing street, the project will not physically divide an established community. However, the proposed sidewalk will connect two existing sidewalks. Project improvements are consistent with the General Plan standards for prime arterials. The project also does not conflict with the General Plan and zoning designations applicable to the properties on which the project is located. Further, project grading and landscaping would occur consistent with the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards. As discussed in detail under Section IV, Biological Resources, of this document, the project site is identified as "developed land" according to the HMP. The project biological report identifies no sensitive species on the project site and instead classifies vegetation and land cover on the project site as "ornamental," "disturbed," and "developed." Although not significant, project impacts to disturbed land (Habitat Type F in Table 11 of the HMP) would be mitigated at the city-owned Lake Calavera, as HMP Table 11 specifies is acceptable. Accordingly, the project is consistent with the Habitat Management Plan. X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D D a)-b) No impact. There are no mineral resources identified on the project site or vicinity. 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D 18 Rev. 02/22/06 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? D D D a) No impact. The project involves only a limited amount of widening and does not propose any noise-producing uses. The noise that would be generated by traffic using the project's widened street has already been anticipated by the General Plan. Noise from construction is regulated by City Municipal Code Chapter 8.48. b) No impact. The project would not produce excessive groundbourne vibration or noise. It is not expected that blasting would be needed to construct the project. Traffic on El Camino Real would not produce excessive vibration sufficient to disturb area occupants and residents. c) No impact. The project would not increase existing ambient noise levels on a permanent basis. Due to the limited widening proposed and the fact that the project proposes no noise-producing uses, the project would not substantially add to the traffic noise or capacity of El Camino Real. Less than significant impact. Residents and occupants in the project vicinity, already exposed to El Camino Real traffic noise, may notice temporary increases in noise due to project construction. Construction hours are regulated by City Municipal Code Chapter 8.48. e) and f) No impact. The project is located within the Noise Impact Notification Area of McClellan-Palomar Airport. However, as the project involves no construction of residences, no notification to residents is required. Use of the improved roadway and sidewalk would only be transient as well. The project is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated 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? D IEI 19 Rev. 02/22/06 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?D D a)-c) No impact. The project would widen and improve a small portion of a major road that is adjacent to already developed areas. Development patterns in the project vicinity are well established and the project would not result in the extension of any infrastructure or displace any buildings. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES 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? Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact n n n n a) i- v) No impact. The project would not impact any of the listed or other public facilities as it would not result in any new residents, visitors, or employees. Conversely, the project would aid fire and police protection and circulation in the City as a whole through the proposed street widening and sidewalk installation. 20 Rev. 02/22/06 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 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? 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? a)-b) No impact. The project would not generate any additional demand on recreation facilities as it would not generate any residential, visitor, or employee population. The project also does not include any recreation facilities. 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)? Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D D D D D 21 Rev. 02/22/06 a) No impact. As a minor road widening proposal, the project would not in and of itself generate any traffic, other than temporary construction traffic. Further, the limited amount of widening proposed is not substantial enough to add traffic capacity to El Camino Real. Construction of the project would be subject to a standard traffic control plan to minimize impacts on traffic. The traffic control plan would, for example, specify allowed construction times and construction access so disruptions to normal traffic flows are minimized. 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 APT* LOS Buildout APT* Rancho Santa Fe Road 17-35 "A-P" 35-56 El Camino Real 27-49 "A-C" 33-62 Palomar Airport Road 10-57 "A-P" 30-73 SR78 124-142 "F" 156-180 1-5 199-216 "P" 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 APT projections are based on the full implementation of the region's general and community plans. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan in that it would widen a small portion of El Camino Real to general plan standards. Therefore, it would help to improve traffic flow. c) No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. It would not, therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed. d) No Impact. All project circulation improvements would be designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City's general plan. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. e) No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Pepartments. Proposed street improvements would aid traffic flow and therefore response times of emergency vehicles. 0 No Impact. The proposed project does not propose nor impact any parking. g) No Impact. The project will improve circulation in the area for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles by connecting two sidewalks and widening a traffic lane. 22 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? 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D D D D D D D a)-b) No impact. As a street improvement project, the proposal would not generate any wastewater. c) No impact. The project would replace a temporary asphalt dike with concrete curb and gutter. Proposed improvements would simply tie into existing curb and gutter located at either end of the project. d) No impact. Other than irrigation for slope planting, the proposal would not generate water demands. Depending on the landscaping location, irrigation would be provided by either adjacent property owners or the City. e) No impact. As a street improvement project, the proposal would not generate any wastewater. f)-g) No impact. Because only minor amounts of existing improvements and vegetation would be demolished and removed from the project site, the proposal would not impact landfill capacity. All waste would be handled according to the City's waste disposal requirements, which are in compliance with all applicable laws. Beyond construction, the project would generate only periodic yard waste. 23 Rev. 02/22/06 Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact D D D D XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumula- tively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. All potentially significant impacts on the environment would be reduced to a level less than significant by implementing the propose mitigation measures as discussed in this initial study. b) No impact. Mitigation for impacts associated with this and other cumulative projects, such as impacts related to project construction, ensure the incremental impacts from development would not contribute to significant cumulative impacts. The project is consistent with the HMP, which, as a component of regional habitat planning efforts, is designed to mitigate cumulative biological impacts in the region. The project would also comply with city standards that regulate construction noise, hours, and traffic. In addition, the project's proposed widening of El Camino Real, a part of the region's circulation system, would conform with the General Plan. The project's contribution to significant cumulative impacts would therefore not be significant. c) Potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. The proposal would meet all existing standards established by federal, state, and local regulations, as discussed in this study. With implementation of proposed mitigation measures, no substantial indirect or direct adverse effects would result from project implementation. The project would enhance the human environment by improving traffic flow on one of Carlsbad's busiest streets. 24 Rev. 02/22/06 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. 25 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. El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards. City of Carlsbad Planning Department. Adopted by City Council Resolution 7642 on August 7,1984. 3. San Diego County Important Farmland 2002. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. 4. Biological Resources Letter Report for the Proposed El Camino Real Road Widening Project. EDAW, Inc. May 24,2004. 5. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. City of Carlsbad. Final Approval November, 2004. 6. Geotechnical Evaluation El Camino Real Widening Carlsbad. California. Ninyo & Moore. December 5, 2003. 7. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. McClellan-Palomar Airport. Carlsbad. California. San Diego County Regional Airport Authority. Originally adopted April 22,1994. Amended October 4,2004. 8. City of Carlsbad GIS. Flood Hazard Zone Layer. Accessed December 12,2006. 9. Archaeological Survey and Testing for The Terraces at Sunny Creek. Carlsbad. California (CT 96-02: HDP 96-02). (Including confidential files). Affinis. May 1997. 10. Fox Property Archaeology Study. Recon. September 2,1998. 26 Rev. 02/22/06 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1. To protect native birds (including raptors) as required by the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code, direct and indirect project impacts that may harm them are to be avoided between February 1 and August 30, the nesting/breeding season. If construction is contemplated during this time, the applicant shall hire a qualified biologist to conduct surveys of suitable nesting habitat within 500 feet of the project area two weeks prior to construction and every two weeks during construction to determine if a nest becomes established and if so what mitigation measures are appropriate. "Construction" includes clearing and grubbing of existing vegetation. Prior to and during construction, the applicant shall receive confirmation from the biologist that construction may proceed or continue and implement any necessary mitigation measures. 2. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Evaluation. El Camino Real Widening. Carlsbad. California, prepared by Ninyo & Moore, dated December 5, 2003, and on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department. The applicant shall also comply with any subsequent amendments to the geotechnical evaluation. Compliance with the recommendations shall be demonstrated on construction plans and documents and during construction, all as appropriate and determined by the City Engineer. 3. Before construction, the applicant shall mitigate at a 1:1 ratio for the permanent loss of 0.10 (MH- acre of disturbed land (Habitat Type F as identified in HMP Table 11). Mitigation shall occur at the Lake Calavera Mitigation Bank. (Note: This measure is not necessary to mitigate a significant impact as impacts to disturbed land are not considered significant by local, state, or federal agencies. This mitigation measure is listed here to ensure compliance with the City's HMP.) 4. The following paleontological mitigation measures shall be implemented: a. Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained to perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources. b. A copy of the paleontologist's report shall be provided to the Planning Director before construction. If the paleontologist's report finds the project will not significantly impact fossil resources, this mitigation measure shall be considered fulfilled and no further effort to comply with this measure shall be required. c. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils present in the geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for laboratory processing through fine screens. d. The paleontologist shall make periodic reports to the Planning Director during the grading process. e. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts. f. All fossils collected may be donated to a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. g. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of the project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer. 27 Rev. 02/22/06 APEUCANT'CQ* IS WITH THE &!)DillO*?<OF^lffiS£ MEASURES K) flffi PROJECT. Date Signature 27 Attachment A 29 Rev. 02/22/06 Page 1 of 3 PROJECT NAME: Widening of El Camino Real APPROVAL DATE: April 18. 2007 FILE NUMBERS: SUP 06-15 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). :ion Measure Verifi Implen Rettnafksl To protect native birds (including raptors) as required by the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code, direct and indirect project impacts that may harm them are to be avoided between February 1 and August 30, the nesting/breeding season. If construction is contemplated during this time, the applicant shall hire a qualified biologist to conduct surveys of suitable nesting habitat within 500 feet of the project area two weeks prior to construction and every two weeks during construction to determine if a nest becomes established and if so what mitigation measures are appropriate. "Construction" includes clearing and grubbing of existing vegetation. Prior to and during construction, the applicant shall receive confirmation from the biologist that construction may proceed or continue and implement any necessary mitigation measures. Project Planning, Engineering 2. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Geotechnicai Evaluation. El Camino Real Widening. Carlsbad. California, prepared by Ninyo & Moore, dated December 5, 2003, and on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department. The applicant Project Planning, Engineering Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. 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 information RD - Appendix P. Page 2 of 3 % • v* - :J:I' VS iMfc&s^if leisure =:/" . _ -j;, . fillf* ^- shall also comply with any subsequent amendments to the geotechnical evaluation. Compliance with the recommendations shall be demonstrated on construction plans and documents and during construction, all as appropriate and determined by the City Engineer. 3. Before construction, the applicant shall mitigate at a 1:1 ratio for the permanent loss of 0.10 acre of disturbed land (Habitat Type F as identified in HMP Table 11). Mitigation shall occur at the Lake Calavera Mitigation Bank. (Note: This measure is not necessary to mitigate a significant impact as impacts to disturbed land are not considered significant by local, state, or federal agencies. This mitigation measure is listed here to ensure compliance with the City's HMP.) 4. The following paleontological mitigation measures shall be implemented: a. Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained to perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources, b. A copy of the paleontologist's report shall be provided to the Planning Director before construction. If the paleontologist's report finds the project will not significantly impact fossil Mpnitdnrigs| .' Type '?* Project Project «-"> Monitoring"i-^Tf-^'-ff^m^ - *•*I -Department Planning Planning, Engineering •^ Shown oh: jJ,l* "Plans :«/f . Verified a implementatiorti ' l^'RerrilirRs" -• Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. 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 information RD - Appendix P. Page 3 of 3 I/ :'T' ''- '">,\ VVtMitigifkHi Measure ..;' ^'~~- ^ '-$'.'' resources, this mitigation measure shall be considered fulfilled and no further effort to comply with this measure shall be required. c. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils present in the geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for laboratory processing through fine screens. d. The paleontologist shall make periodic reports to the Planning Director during the grading process. e. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage . artifacts. f. All fossils collected may be donated to a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. g. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of the project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer. Monitoring ;; type :; f| Monitoring- ,i: iv Department— - , Shown on ; , .Plans ;\!erified Implementation =«*»* "t- "afRemarM-'r 1.•^.^•^'Stfi-- (• Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. 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 information RD - Appendix P. United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Services ; : ; _': tfaiisbad Fish and Wildlife Qffice J. ;' r l< ' /6010 Hidden, Valley Road" ;' /, " •:-' ' ,;> Carlsbad, California 920il; A?:•;.. : '• V'- • .-. '• " • v " iff In Reply Refer To: FWS-SDG-5212.1 Mr. Don Neu City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008-7314 Subject: Comments on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the El Camino Real Road Widening Project, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California'- ' " - ' ,/•/' Dear Mr. Neu: > The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the mitigated negative declaration (MND), dated January 24,2007, and received January 26,2006, for the above referenced project located in the City of Carlsbad (City). The comments provided herein are based on: the information provided in the MND; the Biological Resources Letter Report prepared by EDAW Inc.., dated May 24, 2004; the Service's knowledge of sensitive"and declining vegetation -communities in San Diego County; and our participation in regional conservation planning efforts, including the North San Diego County Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP) and the City's approved Subarea Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The primary concern and mandate of the Service is the protection of public fish and wildlife resources and their habitats. The Service has legal responsibility for the welfare of migratory birds, anadromous fish, and endangered animals and plants occurring in the United States. The Service is also responsible for administering the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act)(16 U.S.C. 1531 etseq.). The proposed project is located along the east side of El Camino Real, extending from near the northeast corner of El Camino Real and Cougar Drive to approximately 280 feet northwest. The project site is surrounded by developed areas, including paved roads, sidewalks and driveways, and graded lots. A large office project, which includes widening of El Camino Real and preservation of open space, is under development to the west of the project site. The project involves removal of existing temporary street improvements and installation of permanent street and sidewalk improvements along a 280-foot long stretch of El Camino Real. The improvements include grading of a small, steep cut slope, adding paving, sidewalk, curb and gutter, and landscaping. The project would also remove a temporary asphalt dike that serves as the present road edge to accommodate the widening and improvements. Biological surveys for the project were completed in November, 2003, and the accuracy of the report was confirmed in a January 2007 field check of the site by City staff and Preserve Steward. Mr. Don Neu (FWS-SDG-5212.1) 2 No focused surveys for plant or wildlife species were conducted. The MND identifies the site as supporting mostly disturbed habitat, developed land, and ornamental vegetation. Permanent impacts to 0.01 acre of disturbed land will be mitigated at a 1 : 1 ratio by pre-debiting the proposed Lake Calavera Mitigation Bank. Additionally, according to the MND, project impacts that may harm native birds (including raptors) will be avoided between February 1 and August 30, the nesting/breeding season. If construction is to occur during this time, the applicant will hire a qualified biologist to conduct surveys of suitable nesting habitat so that nests will be avoided. Based on our review of the MND, we are pleased to find that the proposed project is, for the most part, consistent with the MHCP and HMP. The Wildlife Agencies offer the following recommendations and comments to assist the City in avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating project impacts.to biological resources, and assure that the project is entirely consistent with the MHCP and HMP. 1 . The draft MND indicates that the project encompasses 0.20 acre, but only 0.01 acre of impact was described (i.e., disturbed land). The final MND should describe impacts for the entire 0.2 acre footprint. 2. The final MND should include a map depicting the project footprint with vegetation overlay, including disturbed, ornamental, and developed areas. 3. This project is adjacent to the Fox-Miller project, which preserved a significant population of thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filif olid). The MND is unclear as to whether or not impacts will occur to the Fox-Miller brodiaea preserve. All impacts to the . preserve should be avoided. Prior to project construction, if suitable habitat exists within and immediately adjacent to the project footprint, focused surveys for brodiaea should be conducted. Should brodiaea be detected, the Wildlife Agencies should be contacted to ensure consistency with the City's HMP and the MHCP. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on this project. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Marci Koski at (760) 431-9440. Sincerely, Therese O'Rourli Assistant Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cc: Scott Donnell, City of Carlsbad Warren Wong, California Department of Fish and Game City of Carlsbad PI ia n n i n g D e p a r t m e n t March 21, 2007 Ms. Therese O'Rourke U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4949 Viewridge Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92011 Mr. Warren Wong California Department of Fish and Game 6010 Hidden Valley Road San Diego, CA 92123 SUBJECT: FWS-SDG-5212.1 (SUP 06-15 - WIDENING OF EL CAMINO REAL) Thank you for your letter on the project as referenced above. I would like to respond to the three comments listed in the letter. The comments and staffs response to each are listed below. 1. Wildlife Agency Comment: The draft MND indicates that the project encompasses 0.20 acre, but only 0.01 acre of impact was described (i.e., disturbed land). The final MND should describe impacts for the entire 0.2 acre footprint. Staff Response: The City has prepared the attached map to identify all impacts, by type of land cover and vegetation, for the entire 0.20 acre construction footprint, which includes all grading, landscaping, and paving proposed. Further, to provide a more complete project disclosure, the project description in the final MND has been revised from the draft to clarify the removal and replacement of existing traffic control signs and street markings. Removal and replacement of these control devices are necessary to reflect the addition of a third travel lane for El Camino Real in the project vicinity. These traffic control sign and marking changes are along and just to the south and north of the construction footprint. The proposed removal and replacement of existing signs and markings are neither a significant impact to the environment nor a substantial change to the project description. Additionally, as reported in the draft MND, the amount of project impact to the "disturbed" land cover, 0.01 acre, is incorrect. The correct amount is 0.10 acre. The final MND has been revised accordingly. As the MND describes, an impact to disturbed land cover is not considered significant and is not subject to mitigation. Despite this acreage correction, the area disturbed by project construction remains 0.20 acre as originally reported. 2. Wildlife Agency Comment: The final MND should include a map depicting the project footprint with vegetation overlay, including disturbed, ornamental, and developed areas. Staff Response: The attached map depicts the information desired. The final MND includes the attached map. 3. Wildlife Agency Comment: This project is adjacent to the Fox-Miller project, which preserved a significant population of thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaeafilifolia). The MND is unclear as to whether or not impacts will occur to the Fox-Miller brodiaea preserve. All impacts to the preserve should be avoided. Prior to project construction, if suitable habitat exists within and 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us FWS-SDG-5212.1 (SUP 06-15 - WIDENING OF EL CAMINO REAL) March 21,2007 Page 2 .; immediately adjacent to the project footprint, focused surveys for brodiaea should be conducted. Should brodiaea be detected, the -wildlife agencies should be contacted to ensure consistency with the City's HMP and the MHCP. Staff Response: The project would not impact the Fox-Miller brodiaea preserve. The preserve is on the west side of El Camino Real, and the project is entirely on the east side of the street; the final MND project description clarifies this. Furthermore, the biological resources letter report prepared for the project site did not identify any suitable habitat for the brodiaea occurring within the project construction area. The existing MND clarifies the lack of brodiaea on the project site in the response to questions a) - c) of section IV., Biological Resources, of the Initial Study, which in part states, "Due to the location and poor habitat value of all vegetation and groundcover on the project site, project impacts to the vegetation and ground cover on the project site are not considered significant to local, state, and federal agencies. This is. supported by the project biologist's survey, which identified no sensitive plant and wildlife species known from the project vicinity on the project site." A copy of the final MND with the revisions noted above is enclosed. The Planning Commission will review and consider approval of this project, including adoption of the final MND, at a public hearing on April 18, 2007. A copy of the public hearing notice will be mailed to you. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (760) 602-4618 or sdonn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us. Sincerely, SCOTT DONNELL Associate Planner c: Marci Koski, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Eva Plajzer, Senior Civil Engineer SUP-06-15 RBNFORCEDGAP DETAIL CONSfRUCTION NOTES: DISPOSITION NOTES: Amen * «*«• wi OTHM* MM «r ««wi«« m «• w m tit tea IB ew a •> u « •• *01 l™10 Hi ma n tm * «nn > » e MM nunm ir me* mROAWMYIMPRCWJIEHT 7997 vQMNQf•msar Irtipadts t^ Easting V%etetion and