Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-06-06; Planning Commission; Resolution 63081 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6308 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 FOR THE REPAIR OF EROSION DAMAGE ALONG SAN MARCOS CREEK LOCATED EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL AND 6 NORTH OF LA COSTA AVENUE WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 6. 7 CASE NAME: SAN MARCOS CREEK EROSION REPAIR CASE NO.: SUP 06-078 9 WHEREAS, W2007 La Costa Resort Co. LLC, "Developer/Owner," has filed a 10 verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as 11 A Parcel of land being a portion of Lot 14, Section 35, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian in the City of Carlsbad, in the County of San Diego, State of 13 California, according to the official plat 14 ("the Property"); and 15 WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and 17 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 6th day of June, 2007 hold a 18 duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 2Q WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 21 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and 22 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors 9-1 relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting 24 Program. 25 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning 26 27 Commission as follows: 28 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Exhibit "ND," dated June 6, 2007 according to Exhibits "NOI" dated March 9, 2007, and "PII" dated January 31,2007, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findings; ' • 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. it has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, SUP 06-07 - San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair, 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 has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and d. based on the EIA Part II 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 6th day of June, 2007, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Boddy, Cardosa, Montgomery, and Whitton NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Dominguez and Douglas T/ f\ ) 0 JULIE B CARLSB ^Chairperson PLANNING COMMISSION DONNEU Planning Director PC RESO NO. 6308 -2- City of Carlsbad Planning Department MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair CASE NO: SUP 06-07 PROJECT LOCATION: Along the northerly side of San Marcos Creek, east of El Camino Real and northerly of La Costa Avenue within the La Costa Resort and Spa development. APN 216-123-07-00 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project proposes to place gabions along the northerly side of the San Marcos Creek channel to repair erosion caused by the 2004/5 winter storm runoff. Gabions are wire baskets filled with riprap. The project will also provide erosion protection for a La Costa Resort and Spa service bridge located on an unnamed tributary flowing into San Marcos Creek. The area of repair is located roughly 1.500 feet easterly of the San Marcos Creek bridge on El Camino Real. : 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: |/3 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. |~~1 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 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: June 6. 2007. pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 6308 T: 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: San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair CASE NO: SUP 06-07 PROJECT LOCATION: Along the northerly side of San Marcos Creek, east of El Camino Real and northerly of La Costa Avenue within the La Costa Resort and Spa development. APN 216-123-07-00 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project proposes to place gabions along the northerly side of the San Marcos Creek channel to repair erosion caused by the 2004/5 winter storm runoff. Gabions are wire baskets filled with riprap. The project will also provide erosion protection for a La Costa Resort and Spa service bridge located on an unnamed tributary flowing into San Marcos Creek. The area of repair is located roughly 1.500 feet easterly of the San Marcos Creek bridge on 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 (ELA 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 and City Council. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Van Lynch in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4613. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD March 9. 2007 through April 8. 2007 PUBLISH DATE March 9.2007 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 » www.d8raatf3l9ga9ft3a.us ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - INITIAL STUDY (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: SUP 06-07 DATE: January 31.2007 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Van Lynch (760) 602-4613 4. PROJECT LOCATION: Alone the northerly side of San Marcos Creek, east of El Camino Real and northerly of La Costa Avenue within the La Costa Resort and Spa development. APN 216-123-07-00 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: La Costa Resort and Spa. 2100 Costa Del Mar Rd. Carlsbad CA 92009 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Open Space (OS) 7. ZONING: Planned Community (PC) - La Costa Master Plan MP 03-02 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), and California Department of Fish and Game and Regional Water Quality Control Board. 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The project proposes to place gabions along the northerly side of the San Marcos Creek channel to repair erosion caused by the 2004/5 winter storm runoff. Gabions are wire baskets filled with riprap. The project will also provide erosion protection for an existing La Costa Resort and Spa service bridge located on an unnamed tributary flowing into San Marcos Creek. The bridge provides a one lane access road for maintenance vehicles and golf carts. During the winter of 2004/5. storm flows eroded portions of the stream bank. Future erosion threatens the one-lane service road that parallels the stream and bridge abutments of the La Costa Resort golf course facilities. The area of repair is located roughly 1.500 feet easterly of the San Marcos Creek bridge on El Camino Real. Gabion Walls Alone San Marcos Creek The gabion wall will extend 500 feet along the north edge of San Marcos Creek. A one-foot thick gabion mattress will extend from the toe of the gabions out into the stream channel 15 feet to protect the toe from scour. The upstream end of the gabion mattress will be keyed-in three feet below the stream channel bottom. The proposed gabion wall is 12 feet high, consisting of four layers of gabions, each layer three feet high. The gabion wall will be vegetated with willow cuttings. SUP 06-07 San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair North Tributary Bridge Protection Vegetated gabion wingwalls on both the east and west tributary banks will extend 14 feet upstream of the existing tributary bridge. The vegetated gabion wingwalls are six feet high, consisting of two layers of gabions, each layer three feet high. A one foot thick gabion mattress will cover the stream channel bottom, extending from the upstream end of the wingwalls to the grade control structure downstream of the bridge (18 feet long). The upstream end of the gabion mattress will be keyed in 3 feet below the stream channel bottom. In addition, concrete cutoff walls and wingwalls are proposed to protect the bridge foundation and footings. A gabion grade control structure located just downstream of the tributary bridge will provide a transition into San Marcos Creek. / Gabion installation will require excavation to approximately 12 feet deep at the streambank. At a 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical slope, the excavation will extend 18 feet from the back edge of the gabion. A portion of the service road and cart path will require removal and replacement. A 12 feet wide path will remain available for vehicles access from the edge of excavation. Project Construction Project construction is expected to take up to eight weeks and require the import of approximately 1.430 cubic yards of gabion rocks and 1.770 cubic yards of structural soil. This equates to approximately 270 truckloads (540 trips') of materials. Staging of the construction materials will occur in three possible locations on the Resort property. Additionally, the project will require the export of approximately 3.950 cubic yards of soil and 110 cubic yards of debris. This equates to approximately 340 truckloads (680 trips). History A previous Special Use Permit (SUP 05-10) was issued by the City of Carlsbad on January 4. 2006. The permit was for a temporary repair which has not been implemented. The length of the repair was to be 400 feet long and consisted of placing rip-rap material along the channel edge above the Ordinary High Water Mark. The rip-rap material consisted of a two to four ton rock base with a 1A ton rock fill material placed on top of the base material which would have replaced the eroded soil material. The approval was for in interim fix until a more permanent repair was designed. Rev. 01/02/07 SUP 06-07 San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair 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 I I Air Quality [Xj Biological Resources Cultural Resources I I Geology/Soils | J Noise Q Hazards/Hazardous Materials HH Population and Housing [Xj Hydrology/Water Quality | [ Public Services | I Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources I I Mandatory Findings of Significance I I Recreation Transportation/Circulation Utilities & Service Systems Rev. 01/02/07 SUP 06-07 San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) D D 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. Nothing further is required. Date Acting Planning Director's Signature Date 2-2R-07 Rev. 01/02/07 SUP 06-07 San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair 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. 01/02/07 SUP 06-07 San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair '• 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. 01/02/07 SUP 06-07 San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair 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 D Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact D D D No Impact D D D a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials (gabions) along 350 feet of stream bank. The location is entirely within the La Costa Resort and is not visible from offsite; therefore, it will not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. No impact is identified for this issue area. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway? No Impact The project site is not located near a designated State Scenic Highway. The closest Highway that wpuld be eligible for designation is Interstate 5, which is located approximately two miles west of the project site (California Department of Transportation 1999). However, Interstate 5 has not been designated as a State Scenic Highway. The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along 350 feet of stream bank and will not result in the substantial damage of scenic resources. The project will not impact trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway. No impact is identified for this issue area. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? No Impact The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along 350 feet of stream bank. The location is entirely within the La Costa Resort and is not visible from offsite; therefore it will not result in a substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. No impact is identified for this issue area. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact Implementation of the project will not involve the placement of lighting which would adversely affect day or nighttime view. No impact is identified for this issue area. Rev. 01/02/07 SUP 06-07 San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair 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 D D Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D D D D D 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? No Impact The project site is not classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The project site located along San Marcos Creek, and a tributary of the Creek, that passes through a Commercial Land Use (La Costa Resort and Spa). No impact is identified for this issue area. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact The proposed project site is not under a Williamson Act contract, nor is the project site zoned for agricultural uses. The project site is currently zoned Planned Community and supports a commercial use. No conflicts are known to exist. No impact is identified for this issue area. 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? No Impact The proposed project will not convert any farmland to any non-agricultural use. The project site does not support agricultural uses, nor are there agricultural uses in the project vicinity. The project site is located along San Marcos Creek, and a tributary of the Creek, that passes through an urbanized setting. No impact is identified for this issue area. Rev. 01/02/07 SUP 06-07 San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair 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 D D Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 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 (Os) 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 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 Rev. 01/02/07 i SUP 06-07 San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair 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. Long-term emissions associated with travel to and from the project will be minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with the project, they would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard (comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. c) 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. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the vicinity of the project. No impact is assessed. e) No Impact. The construction of the proposed project could generate fumes from the operation of construction equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would be short-term or transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not considered substantial." 10 Rev. 01/02/07 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 SUP 06-07 San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair Less Than Significant No Impact Impact n D D D D D n n n a) . Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact Based upon biological field reconnaissance performed by HDR Engineering (2006), the following vegetation communities and/or features were observed on the project site; open water (.15 acre), freshwater marsh (0.07 acre), and disturbed wetland (0.14 acre). The City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP) lists 24 narrow endemic and/or sensitive plant species that occur within the City of Carlsbad. Of the 24 species listed in the HMP, only one species has the potential to occur on site due to the disturbed nature of the San Marcos Creek area within the project footprint. The probability of encountering San Diego marsh elder (Iva hayesiana) (a CNPS List 2 species) was low-to-none. In addition, the project area may be suitable for the occurrence of southwestern spiny rush (Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii) (a CNPS List 4 species). Neither of these species was detected on site nor are they expected to occur. 11 Rev. 01/02/07 SUP 06-07 San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair These species would have been detected were they present. The nearest recorded population of San Diego marsh elder occurs north of San Marcos Creek and west of El Camino Real (NDDB). No other federal, state, or rare botanical species were identified during the general biological survey or wetland delineation. Of the 23 sensitive zoological species identified in the HMP, only four have the potential to occur on or near the site: Cooper's hawk; western burrowing owl; least Bell's vireo; and yellow breasted chat. None of these species were detected during the general biological survey or wetland delineation. None of these species were present within the Natural Diversity data Base (NDDB) Of these four species, the Cooper's hawk may occupy nearby native habitat, but would not be expected to nest within or immediately adjacent to the project footprint; however, it may forage in the area; the western burrowing owl is not expected to occupy the site or adjacent areas due to the heavy presence of human disturbance and inappropriate nesting/burrowing habitat; and the least Bell's vireo and yellow-breasted chat could be present during their breading seasons in appropriate habitat located up or down stream of the project site but not within the project site. No impact is identified for this issue area. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Based upon the Biological Resources and Wetland Delineation Report prepared for the project site by HDR (May 2006), the project will impact 0.15 acres of open water, 0.07 acres of freshwater marsh, and 0.14 acres of disturbed wetland. Mitigation will be required to ensure that no net loss of wetlands occurs. The project proposes vegetation of the gabion wall with the appropriate wetland and/or riparian native plant species (i.e. willow, cattails and mulefat scrub) as part of the project design. Additional mitigation, through either wetland enhancement or creation at a 1:1 ratio will be required on site. With implementation of this measure, the impact will be reduced to below a level of significance. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, .filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated A Wetland Delineation Report was prepared for the project site by HDR (May 2006). The report concluded that development of the project would result in a permanent direct impact to 0.07 acres of wetlands/water below the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). Additionally, the project will temporarily impact 0.07 acres of wetlands/waters below the OHWM. A total of 375 linear feet will be directly impacted for project construction with an additional 167 linear feet temporarily impacted for a total of 542 linear feet. Additionally, 1.11 cubic yards per running foot of fill will be placed below the OHWM. It is anticipated that USACE Nationwide Permits (NWP) 13 (Bank Stabilization) and NWP 33 (Temporary Construction) will be utilized. Mitigation will be required to ensure that no net loss of wetlands occurs. The project proposes vegetation of the gabion wall as part of the project design. Additional mitigation, through either wetland enhancement or creation at a 1:1 ratio will be required on site. With implementation of this measure, the impact will be reduced to below a level of significance. 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? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along 350 feet of stream bank, including placement of materials in the water course. While water courses can act as wildlife corridors, the project is not expected to impact the 4ong-term functionality of San Marcos Creek and the tributary to the creek as a wildlife corridor. Construction of the project has the potential to temporarily impact these resources if they were present on the project site. However, no wildlife nursery sites, including avian nests, were noted on the project site during the field visits conducted by HDR Biologists in March 2005 and March 2006. 12 Rev. 01/02/07 SUP 06-07 San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair Construction activities could indirectly impact nesting birds adjacent to the project area. This represents a potentially significant impact. Nesting raptors and other birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In order to protect these birds during project construction, a mitigation measure has been provided that requires a nest survey prior to grading that may occur within 300 feet of mature trees. If no nests are discovered, construction may proceed. In the event that active nests are discovered, the biologist shall mark all occupied trees and delineate a 300-foot buffer area around each occupied tree. No construction activity shall occur until the young have fledged. With implementation of this measure, the impact will be reduced to below a level of significance. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact There are no known conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. No impact is identified for this issue area. 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? No Impact The project site is identified as "Development Area" within the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP) (Figure 28). The placement of stabilizing materials along 350 feet of stream bank will not conflict with the provisions of the Carlsbad HMP. No impact is identified for this issue area. 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 Impact No Impact D D D D D D a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? No Impact The project involves the long-term protection of 350 feet of stream bank in an urbanized setting. The project site would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5. No impact is identified for this issue area. 13 Rev. 01/02/07 SUP 06-07 San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? No Impact. The project involves the long-term protection of 350 feet of stream bank in an urbanized setting. The project site would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5. No impact is identified for this issue area. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologies! resource or site or unique geologic feature? No Impact. The project involves the long-term protection of 350 feet of stream bank in an urbanized setting. Excavations associated with the project would not be characterized as deep. Therefore, the project does not have the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site, or a unique geologic feature and no impact is identified for this issue area. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact. The project involves the long-term protection of 350 feet of stream bank in an urbanized setting. The project will not result in the disturbance of human remains. Further in the event that there is an accidental discovery of human remains, adherence to Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 would be required. This Code states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLTJ). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. No impact is identified for this issue area. 14 Rev. 01/02/07 SUP 06-07 San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair 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 D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact n n n n D n D n n 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. No Impact The project would not subject people or structures to potential adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death due to the rupture of a known earthquake fault. The project involves the permanent stabilization of approximately 350 feet of streambank. Based upon review of the SanGis Interactive 15 Rev. 01/02/07 SUP 06-07 San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair Mapping feature at www.sangis.org. the project site is not located in an area with an identified fault. No impact is identified for this issue area. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? No Impact. The project would not expose people or structures to potential seismic ground shaking, as the project does not involve the construction of structures. The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along approximately 350 feet of stream bank. No impact is identified for this issue area. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact The project would not subject people or structures to potential adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death due to seismic-ground failures and/or liquefaction. The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along 350 feet of stream bank. No impact is identified for this issue area. iv) Landslides? No Impact The project would not subject people or structures to potential adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death due to landslides. The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along 350 feet of stream bank. The project site represents a stream bank in a generally flat setting. No impact is identified for this issue area. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No Impact The project proposes a long term solution to soil erosion on the project site during storm events by placing permanent stabilization material along the channel and bed of a portion of San Marcos Creek. No impact is identified for this issue area. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? No Impact The project site is not located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project. The site is subject to erosion; however, the project is intended to reduce the instability through the placement of permanent stabilization along the channel and bank for a portion of the creek. No , impact is identified for this issue area. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? No Impact The project site is not located on an expansive soil, nor does the project propose any uses that would create a substantial risk to life or property. No impact is identified for this issue area. e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact The project does not propose the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, this issue is not applicable, and no impact is identified for the project. 16 Rev. 01/02/07 I SUP 06-07 San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair 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? 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 whereN residences are intermixed with wildlands? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D D D D D D D D n b a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,, use or disposal of hazardous materials? No Impact The proposed project will not transport, use of or dispose any hazardous material; therefore no impact is identified for this issue area. 17 Rev. 01/02/07 SUP 06-07 San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No Impact There is no potential for release of hazardous materials from accidental conditions; No impact is identified for this issue area. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact There are no schools within a % mile of the affected areas. Additionally, the project will not emit or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste, therefore no impact is identified for this issue area. 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 the environment? No Impact The project site is not located on any hazardous materials site as designated by Government Code Section 65962.5. There is no opportunity to create a significant hazard to the public or environment. No impact is identified for this issue area. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact The project site is located more than two miles south of the McClellan-Palomar Airport, a public airport servicing north county San Diego. The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along 350 feet of stream bank and will not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. No impact is identified for this issue area. 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact The project site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, there is no potential for impact. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact The project will not conflict with any emergency response or evacuation plans. No impact is identified for this issue area. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact The project site is located within a resort/golf course setting, and is surrounded by urban development. The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along 350 feet of stream bank and will not expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss due to wildland fires. No impact is identified for this issue area. 18 Rev. 01/02/07 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 SUP 06-07 San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact D D D D D D D H D D D D D D D 19 Rev. 01/02/07 SUP 06-07 San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair k) Increase erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. 1) Increase pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? m) Change receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? n) Increase any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? o) Increase impervious surfaces and associated runoff? p) Impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat? q) Result in the exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? D D D D D D D D m D D D a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated The SWMP (HDR 2006) prepared for the project stated that sedimentation may occur during construction activities and should be anticipated for the project. Therefore, implementation of the project has the potential to degrade water quality. Mitigation measures in the form of construction and post-construction BMPs will be required to reduce this impact to below a level of significance. It is important to note that in the long term, the project would decrease the amount of sedimentation entering the water during a large storm event, since the banks and bed will be stabilized. These would decrease the amount of loose material potentially entering the waterway. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? No Impact The project will not use groundwater supplies, nor will it interfere with groundwater recharge. The project involves the placement of stabilization materials along a portion of stream bank. The project does not propose any activity that would adversely impact groundwater quality. No impact is identified for this issue area. 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? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated The project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. The placement of stabilization materials along the creek bank and bed will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or increase the long term potential for erosion or siltation on or off-site. The long term project would decrease the amount of sedimentation entering the water during a large storm event, since its bed and banks will be stabilized. This would decrease the amount of loose material potentially entering the waterway. The SWMP 20 Rev. 01/02/07 SUP 06-07 San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair (HDR 2006) prepared for the project stated that sedimentation may occur during construction activities and should be anticipated for the project. Therefore, implementation of the project has the potential to degrade water quality. Mitigation measures in the form of construction and post-construction BMP's will be required to reduce this impact to below a level of significance. i 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? No Impact The project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. The placement of stabilization materials along the creek bank and bed will not substantially alter the drainage pattern of the site, nor substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff. No flooding on or off-site is expected due to the project. This conclusion is confirmed in the Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) prepared for the project by HDR Engineering, Inc (2006). No impact is identified for this issue area. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? No Impact The project will not create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of the storm drain system. The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along 350 feet of stream bank. No impact is identified for this issue area. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated The SWMP (HDR 2006) prepared for the project stated that sedimentation may occur during construction activities and should be anticipated for the project. Therefore, implementation of the project has the potential to degrade water quality. Mitigation measures in the form of construction and post-construction BMPs will be required to reduce this impact to below a level of significance. It is important to note that in the long term, the project would decrease the amount of sedimentation entering the water during a large storm event, since the banks and bed will be stabilized. These would decrease the amount of loose material potentially entering the waterway. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact The project does not propose any housing. Therefore, this issue is not applicable and no impact is identified. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact The project site is located within the 100-year flood plain. Stabilization materials will placed within the channel to protect from future storm events. However, the placement of materials would not impede or redirect flood flows, as the general shape and width of the stream channel will be maintained. No impact is identified for this issue area. 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? No Impact Implementation of the project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. The project does not propose uses that would be used by people, nor does it propose any structures. No impact is identified for this issue area. 21 Rev. 01/02/07 SUP 06-07 San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact The project will not expose people to inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. No impact is identified for this issue area. k) Increase erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated The SWMP (HDR 2006) prepared for the project stated that sedimentation may occur during construction activities and should be anticipated for the project. Therefore, implementation of the project has the potential to temporarily increase erosion into receiving surface waters. Mitigation measures in the form of construction and post-construction BMPs will be required to reduce this impact to below a level of significance. It is important to note that in the long term, the project would decrease the amount of sedimentation entering the water during a large storm event, since the banks and bed will be stabilized and not subject to erosion once the project is completed. 1) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? No Impact The project will not result in an increased pollutant discharge. The project does not propose any uses that would discharge pollutants into the creek. No impact is identified for this issue area. m) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated The SWMP (HDR 2006) prepared for the project stated that sedimentation may occur during construction activities and should be anticipated for the project. Therefore, implementation of the project has the potential to temporarily increase erosion into receiving surface waters. Mitigation measures in the form of construction and post-construction BMPs will be required to reduce this impact to below a level of significance. It is important to note that in the long term, the project would decrease the amount of sedimentation entering the water during a large storm event, since the banks and bed will be stabilized and not loose material. n) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as. listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d)list? No Impact San Marcos Creek and Batiquitos lagoon are not identified on the 303(d) list as impaired water bodies. No impact is identified for this issue area. o) Increase impervious surfaces and associated runoff? No Impact The project will not substantially alter the existing surface material of the site. The placement of stabilization materials along the creek bank and bed will not substantially alter the drainage pattern of the site, nor substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff. No impact is identified for this issue area. p) Impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Based upon the Biological Resources and Wetland Delineation Report prepared for the project site by HDR (May 2006), the project will impact 0.15 acres of open water, 0.07 acres of freshwater marsh, and 0.14 acres of disturbed wetland. Mitigation will be required to ensure that no net loss of wetlands occurs. The project proposes vegetation of the gabion wall with the appropriate wetland and/or riparian native plan species (i.e. willow, cattails and mulefat scrub) as part of the project design. Additional mitigation, through either wetland enhancement or creation at a 22 Rev. 01/02/07 SUP 06-07 San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair i ' ' 1:1 ratio will be required on site. With implementation of this measure, the impact will be reduced to below a level of significance. q) Result in the exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? No Impact Implementation of the project will not result in the exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses. The project will improve water quality by decreased erosion activity into San Marcos Creek. 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? x> c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact D D n n a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact The project does not propose any uses that would divide an established community. No impact is identified. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact The project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the General Plan, Master Plan, Local Coastal Program, or Zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The project site is not located within the coastal zone. No impact is identified for this issue area. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact The project site is identified as "Development Area" within the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP) (Figure 28). The site is not within any existing or proposed hard line, Standards, core or linkage areas of the HMP. The placement of stabilizing materials along 350 feet of stream bank will not conflict with the provisions of the Carlsbad HMP. No impact is identified for this issue area. 23 Rev. 01/02/07 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 SUP 06-07 San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact D D n D a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact The project site is not known to have any mineral resource that may be of value to the region or State. There is no opportunity to affect this type of mineral resource. No impact is identified for this issue area. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact The project site is not designated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site by any plan. No impact is identified for this issue area. 24 Rev. 01/02/07 SUP 06-07 San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair XL 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) 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? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact D D D D n n n D D D D D a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? No Impact The project does not propose any uses that would expose people to, or generate noise levels in excess of standards established by the City of Carlsbad, The only temporary noise sources would be the stockpile of stabilization materials, and any noise associated with the placement of the materials along the stream bank. These two activities do not produce an excessive level of noise. Additionally, the project will be required to adhere to the City's Zoning Ordinance as it relates to construction noise (Section 8.48.0.10), which prohibits construction activities after sunset and before 7:00 am Monday through Friday and before 8:00 am on Saturday. No impact is identified for this issue area. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? No Impact The project does not propose any uses that would expose people to, or generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels. No impact is identified for this issue area. 25 Rev. 01/02/07 SUP 06-07 San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in.the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact - The project does not propose any uses that would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. Any noise-generating activity associated with the project would not be considered substantial. No impact is identified for this issue area. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less than Significant. The project does not propose any uses that would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. Any noise-generating activity associated with the project would be temporary, and associated with project construction. Therefore, a less than significant impact is identified. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact The project site is not located within an airport land use plan. Therefore, this issue is not applicable to the project and no impact is identified. 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? No Impact The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. This issue is not applicable to the project. No impact is identified. 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? -Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact n n D a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. The project does not propose any uses that would induce substantial population growth. No impact is identified. 26 Rev. 01/02/07 SUP 06-07 San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact Residences are not located within the project site. No impact is identified. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact The project will not displace a substantial number of people or necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact is identified. 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? Potentially Significant Impact D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact Dn n a) Fire protection? No Impact The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along 350 feet of stream bank. The project does not propose any uses that would require new or additional fire protection services. No impact is identified for this issue area. b) Police protection? No Impact The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along 350 feet of stream bank. The project does not propose any uses that would require new or additional police protection services. No impact is identified for this issue area. c) Schools? No Impact The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along 350 feet of stream bank. The project does not propose any uses that would require new or additional school services. No impact is identified for this issue area. 27 Rev. 01/02/07 SUP 06-07 San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair d) Parks? No Impact The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along 350 feet of stream bank. The project does not propose any uses that would require new or additional park services. No impact is identified for this issue area. e) Other public facilities? No Impact The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along 350 feet of stream bank. The project does not propose any uses that would require new or additional public facilities. No impact is identified for this issue area. 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact The project site is located on private property. The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along 350 feet of stream bank and does not proposes any uses that will result in the increase in use of existing neighborhood or regional parks. No impact is identified for this issue area. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along 350 feet of stream bank and will hot result in the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. No impact is identified for this issue area. 28 Rev. 01/02/07 SUP 06-07 San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair 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 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D D D 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)? Less than Significant The project will require the import of stabilization materials and the export of debris. Project construction is expected to take up to eight weeks and require the import of approximately 1,430 cubic yards of gabion rocks and 1,770 cubic yards of structural soil. This equates to approximately 270 truckloads (540 total trips) of materials. Additionally, the project will require the export of approximately 4,100 cubic yards of material. This equates to approximately 340 truckloads (680 total trips). In total, the project will generate 1,220 truck trips over an eight-week work period. This equates to approximately 30 truck trips per day. Additionally, workers at the project site will arrive by personal vehicle. Given the relatively small number of truck trips and personal vehicles, as well as the duration of time, this is not a substantial addition of vehicles compared to existing traffic levels. Therefore, a less than significant impact is identified. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? No Impact. The number of truck trips associated with the project (1,220 total over eight weeks) is not considerable enough to exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of significance standard established by the county congestion management agency for designation roads or highways. No impact is identified for this issue area. 29 Rev. 01/02/07 SUP 06-07 San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is not located within 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) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City's general plan and zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. No impact assessed. f) Result in insufficient parking capacity? No Impact. The proposed project is not requesting a parking variance. Additionally, the project would comply with the City's parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply. No impact assessed. h) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn- outs, bicycle racks)? No Impact The project will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along 350 feet of stream bank. No impact is identified for this issue area. 30 Rev. 01/02/07 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 D D SUP 06-07 San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D D D Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact The project does not propose activities that will generate wastewater. Therefore, there is no potential to exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along 350 feet of stream bank. No impact is identified for this issue area. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact The project does not propose activities that will require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities of the expansion of existing facilities. The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along 350 feet of stream bank. No impact is identified for this issue area. 31 Rev. 01/02/07 SUP 06-07 San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact The project does not propose activities that will significantly impact storm water drainage facilities. The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along 350 feet of stream bank. No impact is identified for this issue area. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact The project does not propose activities that will significantly impact water supply. The project does not propose any uses that would require water. The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along 350 feet of stream bank. No impact is identified for this issue area. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact The project does not propose activities that will significantly impact wastewater treatment providers. The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along 350 feet of stream bank. No impact is identified for this issue area. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? No Impact The project involves the placement of stabilizing materials along 350 feet of stream bank. Additionally, approximately 4,100 cubic yards of debris and soil will be removed from the project site. Debris from the project site would be transported to either the Sycamore Sanitary Landfill in Santee and/or Prima Deshecha Sanitary Landfill in San Juan Capistrano. The Sycamore Landfill has a daily permitted capacity of 3,300 tons/day of solid waste (CIWMB 2006), with an anticipated closure date of 2016. The Prima Deshecha Landfill has a daily permitted capacity of 4,000 tons/day of solid waste (CIWMB 2006), with an anticipated closure date of 2067. Debris generated by the project can be accommodated at either of these landfills with out impacting the permitted capacity. It is possible that soil exported from the project site could be used at another project site, though none have been identified at this time. In that case, some or all of the debris would be diverted from the landfill. The project site is located in an area that may contain soil material that is suitable for beach sand replenishment. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, and as part of the grading plan preparation, the developer shall test the soil material to be exported from the project site to determine the materials suitability for sand replenishment. Material testing shall be conducted pursuant to the requirements of the Carlsbad Opportunistic Beach Fill Program (COBFP). No impact is identified for this issue area. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact The project does not propose activities that will significantly impact solid waste services or facilities. The project will not conflict with any statutes or regulations. No impact is identified for this issue area. 32 Rev. 01/02/07 SUP 06-07 San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair 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 the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact b) D D D D D D 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? Less than significant. Based on evaluations and discussions contained in the Initial Study the proposed project has limited potential to degrade the quality of the environment. The project will not substantially reduce the habitat offish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining level, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. All biological resource impacts will be reduced to below a level of significance through mitigation measures. Therefore, a less than significant impact is identified for this issue area. Additionally, based up on the evaluation and discussion contained in the Initial Study, the project will not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a.project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) No Impact. The proposed project will not have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. Given that project impacts are minimal, and limited to biological resources and water quality, cumulative impacts are not foreseen. No impact is identified for this issue area. 33 Rev. 01/02/07 SUP 06-07 San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Impact. Based upon the analysis presented in this initial study, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly. No impact is identified for this issue area. 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. 34 Rev. 01/02/07 SUP 06-07 San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair 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. California Department of Fish and Game. 2004 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 3. General Biological Survey and Wetland Delineation Report La Costa Resort and Spa Proposed Streambank Protection Project. HDR Engineering, Inc, May. 2006 4. Storm Water Management Plan for La Costa Resort and Spa Streambank Protection Project. HDR Engineering, Inc. February 2006 5. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, McClellan-Palomar Airport, Carlsbad, CA. October 4, 2004 as amended. San Diego Regional Airport Authority. 6. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Table of Listed Waterbodies for 2002 http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego/programs/303dlist/Listed%20Waterbodies-2002.pdf LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE') The project shall have no net loss of wetlands and shall enhance or create wetland habitat at a 1:1 ratio on site within the project area. 1. The project shall maintain .15 acres of open water after project completion. Impacts to .07 acre of freshwater marsh and .14 acres of disturbed wetland will be mitigated through habitat creation on the project siter This mitigation shall occur through the planting of the gabion wall (0.14 acres) with live willow cuttings and habitat creation in the stream channel (0.07 acres). 2. A restoration planting plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to the commencement of work. 3. Construction activities could indirectly impact nesting raptors and other migratory birds nesting adjacent to the project area. Prior to grading, a bird nest survey of trees within 300 feet of the construction area shall be performed to determine if raptors or migratory bird nests exist. In the event that occupied nests are discovered, the biologist shall mark all occupied trees and delineate a 300 foot buffer area around each occupied tree. No construction shall occur within the 300 foot buffer until the young have fledged. 4. The project shall implement the Storm Water Management Plan for the La Costa Resort and Spa Streambank Protection Project, HDR, dated February 2006 and construction and post-construction BMP's. 5. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, and as part of the grading plan preparation, the developer shall test the soil material to be exported from the project site to determine the materials suitability for sand replenishment. Material testing shall be conducted pursuant to the requirements of the Carlsbad Opportunistic Beach Fill Program (COBFP). 35 Rev. 01/02/07 SUP 06-07 San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair 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 36 Rev. 01/02/07 1 PROJECT NAME: San Marcos Creek Erosion Repair APPROVAL DATE: FILE NUMBERS: SUP 06-07 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). 1 . The project shall maintain . 1 5 acre of open water after project completion. Impacts to .07 acre of freshwater marsh and .14 acre of disturbed wetland will be mitigated through habitat creation on the project site. This mitigation shall occur through the planting of the gabion wall (0.14 acres) with live willow cuttings and habitat creation in the stream channel (0.07 acres). 2. A restoration planting plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to the commencement of work. Plan Plan '- ^HFpartmesntf1 Planning Planning No No ! : Verified T; lroyei|iptttiw;'•' ^.Bfinarks 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. •• . " • ": •" '1 3. Construction activities could indirectly impact nesting raptors and other migratory birds nesting adjacent to the project area. Prior to grading, a bird nest survey of trees within 300 feet of the construction area shall be performed to determine if raptors or migratory bird nests exist. In the event that occupied nest are discovered, the biologist shall mark all occupied trees and delineate a 300 foot buffer area around each occupied tree. No construction shall occur within the buffer until the young have fledged. 4. The project shall implement the Storm Water Management Plan for the La Costa Resort and Spa Streambank Protection Project, HDR, dated February 2006 and construction and post- construction BMP's. 5. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, and as part of the grading plan preparation, the developer shall test the soil material to be exported from the project site to determine the materials suitability for sand replenishment. Material testing shall be conducted pursuant to the requirements of the Carlsbad Opportunistic Beach Fill Program (COBFP). Report Plan Planning Planning No No > » _ . Verified ' .•' ffmptenje'ntation j Remarks 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.