Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-03-05; Planning Commission; Resolution 63931 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6393 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION 4 MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO DEMOLISH , AN EXISTING 50-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX AND TO SUBDIVIDE THE 3.05 ACRE SITE AND CONSTRUCT 35 6 RESIDENTIAL AIR-SPACE CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON ONE HOA LOT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 2303 7 OCEAN STREET ON THE NORTH SIDE OF OCEAN STREET AND WEST OF MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE WITHIN THE 8 MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM o AND LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: OCEAN STREET RESIDENCES 10 CASE NO.: CT 05-12/CP 05-11/CDP 05-28 11 WHEREAS, 2303 Investors, LP, "Owner/Developer," has filed a verified 12 application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as 13 That portion of Lot "A" of Granville Park Unit No. 2 14 according to Map thereof No. 2037 and that portion of Laguna Drive of Granville Park adjacent thereto (vacated by 15 Resolution No. 918 of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, 16 California, recorded July 19, 1963 as Document No. 126793, Records of San Diego County California) according to Map 17 thereof No. 1782 - all in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California and filed in the Office of the County 18 Recorder of said County 19 ("the Property"); and 20 WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and 21 Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and 22 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on March 5, 2008, hold a duly Z^3 24 noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 25 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 2" and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and 27 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors 28 relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning 2 Commission as follows: 3 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.4 r B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration and 6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Exhibit "MND," according to Exhibits "NOI" dated November 23, 2007, and "PII" dated October 31, 2007, 7 attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findings: 9 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: 10 a. it has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for OCEAN STREET RESIDENCES - CT 05-12, CP 05-11, and CDP 05-28, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to 13 APPROVING the proj ect; and 14 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 , s Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and 17 c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and 1! 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. 20 Conditions: 21 1. Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of the Ocean Street Residences 22 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 23 24 25 26 27 28 PC RESO NO. 6393 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on March 5, 2008, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners Baker, Boddy, Cardosa, Montgomery, and Chairperson Whitton Commissioner Dominguez Commissioner Douglas WHITTON, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: DON NEU Planning Director PC RESO NO. 6393 -3- City of Carlsbad CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: Planning Department MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Ocean Street Residences CT 05-12/CP 05-11/CDP 05-28 The north side of Ocean Street and west of Mountain View Drive at 2303 Ocean Street. Carlsbad. CA CAPN 203-010-12 and -15) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The 3.05 acre site is currently developed with 50 apartment units. Existing detached single-family and condominium development is located to the south and west of the site, a tennis court is located to the east of the site; and an open space lot, single-family residence and Buena Vista Lagoon are located to the north of the site. The proposed project includes a Tentative Tract Map (CT 05-12), Condominium Permit (CP 05-11), and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 05-28) for the demolition of the existing apartments and construction of a new 35-unit airspace condominium project with underground parking. Grading for the project includes 13,200 cy of cut, 5,800 cy of fill, and 7,400 cy of export. 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: 1X1 Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. I I The proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. (Mitigated Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: March 5. 2008. pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 6393 ATTEST: DON NEU Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - INITIAL STUDY (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CT 05-12/CP 05-11/HDP 05-07/CDP 05-28 DATE: October 31.2007 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: OCEAN STREET RESIDENCES 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad. CA 92008 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Barbara Kennedy. Associate Planner 760.602.4626 4. PROJECT LOCATION: 2303 Ocean Street. Carlsbad. CA 92008 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: 2303 Investors. LP 1020 Prospect Street. La Jolla . CA 92037 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RMH (Residential Medium-High Density; 8-15 du/ac) 7. ZONING: R-3/BOAZ(Multiple Family Residential w/ Beach Area Overlay Zone) 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): N/A 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The 3.05 acre project site is located on the north side of Ocean Street and west of Mountain View Drive. The site is currently developed with 50 apartment units. Existing detached single-family and condominium development is located to the south and west of the site, a tennis court is located to the east of the site; and an open space lot, single-family residence and the Buena Vista Lagoon are located to the north of the site. The proposed project includes a Tentative Tract Map (CT 05-12), Condominium Permit (CP 05-11), Hillside Development Permit (HDP 05-07), and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 05-28) for the demolition of the existing apartments and construction of a new 35-unit airspace condominium project with underground parking. Grading for the project includes 13,200 cy of cut, 5,800 cy of fill, and 7,400 cy of export. A separate, but related project includes interior and exterior upgrades to an existing 10-unit apartment project located at 3366 Roosevelt Street, Carlsbad, CA. The Roosevelt Street Residences (SDP 06-10) project is proposed as an off-site "Combined" Inclusionary Housing project which will be used to satisfy the City's affordable housing requirement for the Ocean Street condominiums. Seven of the existing units are proposed to be rent-restricted as affordable to lower-income households. The remaining three existing units are proposed as market-rate units. The off-site "Combined" Inclusionary Housing project is Categorically Exempt, Class 1, Section 15301-Existing Facilities. Project Number: CT 05-12/CP 05-11/HDP 05-07/CDP 05-28 Project Name: Ocean Street Residences ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality /\ Biological Resources /\ Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Noise Hazards/Hazardous Materials LJ Population and Housing Hydrology/Water Quality | Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Mandatory Findings of Significance Public Services Recreation Transportation/Circulation | Utilities & Service Systems Rev. 01/02/07 Project Number: CT 05-12/CP 05-11/HDP 05-07/CDP 05-28 Project Name: Ocean Street Residences DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. /\ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. // Date /I/1&/Q-7 Planning Director's Signature Date Rev. 01/02/07 Project Number: CT 05-12/CP 05-11/HDP 05-07/CDP 05-28 Project Name: Ocean Street Residences 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. 08/02/07 Project Number: CT 05-12/CP 05-11/HDP 05-07/CDP 05-28 Project Name: Ocean Street Residences • 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. 08/02/07 Project Number: CT 05-12/CP 05-11/HDP 05-07/CDP 05-28 Project Name: Ocean Street Residences AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact b & c) No Impact. The project includes demolishing an existing 1960's era 50-unit apartment project and constructing a 35-unit condominium project and would not impact any scenic or historic resources. a & d) Less than Significant Impact. The project is subject to the site design, architectural, and landscaping standards contained in the City of Carlsbad Planned Development Ordinance, City of Carlsbad Landscape Manual, City Council Policy 66 for the Design of Livable Neighborhoods, and the Beach Area Overlay Zone which limits the building height to 30 feet and two stories. New sources of light and glare would not be created and standard conditions of approval require that all lighting shall be shielded so that it does not spillover onto adjacent properties. 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 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? Rev. 08/02/07 Project Number: CT 05-12/CP 05-11/HDP 05-07/CDP 05-28 Project Name: Ocean Street Residences a-c) No Impact. The site is an existing, developed site. No agricultural resources exist on the site. HI. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is' in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact n D a) No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a state non-attainment area for ozone (O3) and for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM,0). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). A Plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state- mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9* 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. 08/02/07 Project Number: CT 05-12/CP 05-11/HDP 05-07/CDP 05-28 Project Name: Ocean Street Residences 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 would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. 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. 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact Rev. 08/02/07 Project Number: CT 05-12/CP 05-11/HDP 05-07/CDP 05-28 Project Name: Ocean Street Residences 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? 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 habitat conservation plan? local, regional, or state Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D a & d) Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The Draft Biological Resources Technical Report for the Ocean Street Property, Dudek & Associates, Inc., dated November 2005, indicates that the site consists only of developed land including an existing multi-family apartment complex and associated infrastructure, including covered parking structures and ornamental landscaping. No sensitive plant or sensitive wildlife species were detected onsite, and due to the extent of development present onsite none are expected to occur. The lower basin of the Buena Vista Lagoon is located offsite and approximately 120 feet north of the project site. Due to the high-quality biological resources present there, the lagoon likely supports a variety of waterfowl, fish amphibian, and coastal avifaunal species. Since impacts to sensitive plants are not expected to occur, no mitigation is proposed. Additionally, because the project site does not serve as a potential wildlife corridor as it is currently developed with a 50-unit apartment project and the lagoon is located approximately 120 feet to the north, redevelopment of the site is unlikely to affect wildlife movement. No mitigation is proposed for impacts to habitat linkages/wildlife corridors because the proposed impacts are not considered significant. Implementation of the project could result in direct impacts to nesting birds. Therefore a mitigation measure is included in the event that construction commences during the bird breeding season. To avoid impacts to nesting birds, construction should be timed, where feasible, to avoid the bird nesting season (ie., January 1 through August 31 for most species, including raptors). However, if tree removal occurs during this time period, a focused avian nesting survey shall be performed by a qualified wildlife biologist within 72 hours prior to tree removal in accordance with the Migratory Treaty Act (16 U.S.G. 703-712) Construction should not commence until a qualified wildlife biologist has inspected all of the trees onsite for nesting birds. If any active nests are detected, the area will be flagged, along with a buffer ranging from 25 to 300 feet (specific width to be determined by the project biologist) and will be avoided until the nesting cycle is complete. \ b-c) Less Than Significant Impact. A formal Jurisdictional Wetlands Delineation was conducted for the site and concluded that no Jurisdictional waters of the U.S. including wetlands were identified onsite. The report indicates that the lower basin of the Buena Vista Lagoon is located offsite and approximately 120 feet north of the project site. Due to the high-quality biological resources present there, the lagoon likely supports a variety of waterfowl, fish amphibian, and coastal avifaunal species. Rev. 08/02/07 Project Number: CT 05-12/CP 05-11/HDP 05-07/CDP 05-28 Project Name: Ocean Street Residences Adjacent offsite lands consist of residential development to the south and west; tennis courts to the east, and disturbed lands to the north are comprised mostly of non-native herbs and forbs with scattered low-growing shrubs including notch-leaf marsh rosemary (Limonium sinuatum) and deerweed (Lotus scoparius). The Buena Vista Lagoon is located approximately 120 feet offsite and to the north of the project and is not expected to be indirectly impacted by the project. Although short-term indirect impacts may have the potential to occur, measures will be taken during construction to minimize adverse edge effects. All project grading will be subject to the typical restrictions and requirements that address erosion and runoff, including the federal Clean Water Act, NPDES, and the preparation of a SWPPP. Therefore, no indirect impacts to adjacent offsite lands are expected to occur. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The report indicates that although the site is adjacent to habitat associated with the Buena Vista Lagoon, the site itself is currently developed with a 50-unit apartment project which precludes it from functioning as a wildlife corridor or habitat linkage. No mitigation is proposed for impacts to habitat linkages/wildlife corridors because the proposed impacts are not considered significant. e) No Impact. The project has been designed to comply with the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP) and Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program requirements and does not conflict with any policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The project site is located over 120 feet from the Ordinary Mean High Water line of the Buena Vista Lagoon site and complies with the HMP and coastal zone requirements for a 100 foot buffer from wetlands. f) Less than Significant Impact. The site currently supports existing residential uses and will continue to support residential uses. The project has been designed to observe the minimum 100-foot buffer to protect offsite adjacent wetland preserve areas (Buena Vista Lagoon) as required by the HMP. In addition, the project is consistent with the HMP adjacency standards as follows: 1. Fire Management - due to the project's location within an urban neighborhood and the lack of fuel resources offsite, no fuel modification zones are proposed by or required for the project. The type of construction proposed (multi-family residential condominiums) will require that all of the residences are protected by a residential fire sprinkler system. 2. Erosion Control - all project grading will be subject to the typical restrictions and requirements that.address erosion and runoff, including the federal Clean Water Act, NPDES, and the preparation of a SWPPP. All runoff has been designed to remain within the on-site landscaped areas or to be filtered through appropriate storm drain facilities (grassy swale or other acceptable Treatment Control BMPs) where it will be filtered and released into Buena Vista Lagoon. As a result of these project design features, runoff from the site will not adversely impact aquatic, wetland or riparian habitat and the offsite preserve areas are not expected to be impacted by the project. 3. Landscaping Restrictions - the proposed project is separated from the Buena Vista Lagoon by a minimum 100 foot off-site open space buffer. Although the use of non-native landscaping within the project area is not expected to result in adverse effects to the offsite preserve areas, the landscape plan has been designed with a 20 foot wide "Naturalized Vegetation" area (non-invasive native or naturalizing species) located along the northern boundary of the site. 4. Fencing, Signs, and Lighting - the Buena Vista Lagoon is located approximately 120 feet to the north of the site and there are no on-site preserve areas which require fencing or signage. A metal picket fence is proposed along the northern property line and no pedestrian or vehicular access is proposed along the northern, eastern or western boundaries of the site. Standard project conditions of approval require that project lighting must be shielded to ensure that building and parking lot lighting does not spillover into the adjacent properties or preserve areas. 5. Predator and Exotic Species - the project will be fenced and is located approximately 120 feet from the Buena Vista Lagoon. The biological report indicates that predators and exotic species issues are not expected to negatively affect the offsite preserve. 10 Rev. 08/02/07 Project Number: CT 05-12/CP 05-11/HDP 05-07/CDP 05-28 Project Name: Ocean Street Residences 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 D Less Than Significant No Impact Impact a) No Impact. The project includes demolishing an existing 50-unit apartment project and constructing a 35-unit condominium project and would not impact any historical resources in that none exist on the site. b & d) Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. According to the Archeological Resources Study - 2303 Ocean Street, Affmis, dated May 2005, no historic or archaeological resources were identified within the project area. However, given the proximity to the Buena Vista Lagoon and to a previously mapped site to the west (CA-SDI-626), the report indicated that there is a potential for subsurface cultural resources. Additionally, the report indicates that there was a reference (Hanna 1984) "to a rumor" that a human burial had been found on the CA-SDI-626 site previously. Therefore, a mitigation measure is included requiring an archeologist and a Native American representative be retained to monitor initial grading in the area identified in the geology report as undocumented fill/alluvium. If archeological resources are encountered, the monitor would have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect grading, in order to document the cultural material discovered. If cultural material is found and collected, it would be curated at the San Diego Archeological Center (or other appropriate repository) or repatriated to the San Luis Rey band if they so desire. c) Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. According to the Phase Environmental Site Assessment Report - 2303 Ocean Street, NAC, dated October 6, 2003, the soils on the site contain Pleistocene Age Marine Terrace Deposits. The Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01) indicates that Pleistocene Terrace Deposits may have the potential to contain fossiliferous rock. The project grading requires significant excavation (up to 15 feet of cut) in some portions of the site for the underground parking garage. Removal of this material has the potential to adversely impact scientifically significant paleontological resources. A mitigation program which involves review of the grading plans, attendance of a paleontologist at grading meetings and during the grading operation with the authority to direct grading operations to salvage resources, and curation, at the direction of the property owner, of the resources will mitigate the impacts to a less than significant level. 11 Rev. 08/02/07 Project Number: CT 05-12/CP 05-11/HDP 05-07/CDP 05-28 Project Name: Ocean Street Residences VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or .the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D x a. i & iv) No Impact. There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones within the City of Carlsbad and there is no other evidence of active or potentially active faults within the City. The Geotechnical Investigation - Ocean Street Condominium, GEOCON, Inc., dated September 3, 2004, indicates that no landslides are present on the property or at a location that could impact the site. a. ii - iii) Less Than Significant Impact. There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones within the City of Carlsbad and there is no other evidence of active or potentially active faults within the City. However, there are several active faults throughout Southern California, and these potential earthquakes could affect Carlsbad. The Geotechnical Investigation indicates that the site could be subjected to moderate to severe ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. The report recommends that seismic design of the structures be performed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) guidelines that are currently adopted by the City of Carlsbad. The report indicates that the potential for lateral spreading and flow slides is considered low and that mitigation of liquefaction settlement should consist of deep foundations or stone columns as recommended in the Geotechnical Investigation. 12 Rev. 08/02/07 Project Number: CT 05-12/CP 05-11/HDP 05-07/CDP 05-28 Project Name: Ocean Street Residences It is understood that the same building code standards, which ensure the relative safety of all new residential construction, will be applied to the units constructed pursuant to the proposed tentative map. Standard conditions of project approval require that the project incorporate all recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation into the design of the project. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project's compliance with standards in the City's Excavation and Grading Ordinance that prevent erosion through slope planting and installation of temporary erosion control measures will avoid substantial soil erosion impacts. c - d) Less than Significant Impact. The Geotechnical Investigation indicates that undocumented fill and alluvial soils encountered on site will require removal and recompaction as recommended in the report. On-site soils were identified as being very low to high in expansion potential and recommendations for foundation design and construction are presented in the report. The report indicates that development of the property appears to be feasible form a geotechnical viewpoint, provided the recommendations presented in the report are properly incorporated into the design and construction of the project. e) No Impact. The proposed project does not propose septic tanks and will utilize the public sewer system. Therefore, there will be no impacts involving soils that support the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 13 Rev. 08/02/07 Project Number: CT 05-12/CP 05-11/HDP 05-07/CDP 05-28 Project Name: Ocean Street Residences g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a & c-h) No Impact. According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, no on-site recognized environmental conditions were identified during the course of the assessment and no off-site environmental conditions were identified that were considered likely to impact the property. The proposed residential development does not propose any transportation or storage of hazardous materials. The project is located within an urban neighborhood and due to the lack of fuel resources offsite, no fuel modification zones are proposed by or required for the project. The type of construction proposed (multi-family residential condominiums) will require that all of the residences are protected by a residential fire sprinkler system. The use of the site for residential purposes is consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for McClellan-Palomar Airport. b) Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, suspect and previously-confirmed asbestos containing materials were observed at the property. The potential release of asbestos during demolition of the existing apartment building is considered potentially significant. To reduce the impact associated with this potential release of asbestos, a mitigation measure is included requiring the preparation of an asbestos investigation and mitigation report. The mitigation report shall identify appropriate clean-up and disposal requirements necessary to avoid releasing asbestos into the air. 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 14 Rev. 08/02/07 Project Number: CT 05-12/CP 05-11/HDP 05-07/CDP 05-28 Project Name: Ocean Street Residences 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 storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporatedn Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 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 15 Rev. 08/02/07 Project Number: CT 05-12/CP 05-11/HDP 05-07/CDP 05-28 Project Name: Ocean Street Residences a) Less than Significant Impact. The subject property is required by law to comply with all federal, state and local water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act, California Administrative Code Title 23, and specific basin plan objectives identified in the "Water Quality Control Plan for San Diego Basin." (WQCP) The WQCP contains specific objectives for the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit which includes the requirement to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Best Management Practices (BMP's). The project must also obtain a NPDES permit prior to construction. The permit will require the project to develop and implement specific erosion control and storm water pollution prevention plans to protect the downstream water quality of Buena Vista Lagoon. These plans will ensure acceptable water quality standards will be maintained both during the construction phase as well as post-development. b) No Impact. This project does not propose to directly draw any groundwater. The project will be served via existing public water distribution lines adjacent to the site. c - f) Less than Significant Impact. The Hydrology Report - Ocean Street Condominium, BHA, Inc., dated May 11, 2005, indicates that the proposed design does not adversely affect surrounding properties and the storm drain system adequately drains the proposed project in a 100-year storm event. Construction of the proposed project improvements is required by law to comply with all federal, state and local water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act and associated NPDES regulations and temporary impacts associated with the construction operation will be mitigated. The project will not result in permanent or long term degradation of water quality as a result of the proposed pollution control program. g - i) No Impact. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to the Flood Insurance Rate Map. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in the placement of housing or structures and within a 100-year flood hazard area. According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, the site is not located within any dam failure inundation area. j) Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located approximately 400 feet east of the Pacific Ocean and is over 120 feet from the Buena Vista Lagoon with a minimum elevation at the site of approximately 12 feet MSL. Therefore, there is a moderate potential of a tsunami or seiche inundating the site. k) Less than Significant Impact. The construction phase of the project could result in increased erosion. However, as a result of the NPDES permit requirements associated with the proposed project, no significant increase in erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters will result from the project. Urban runoff from the proposed development will be channeled into the appropriate storm drain receptors as indicated in the project's Water Quality Technical Report - Ocean Street Condominium, BHA, Inc., dated revised July 26, 2007. The greatest potential for short-term water quality impacts to the drainage basin would be expected during and immediately following the grading and construction phases of the project, when cleared and graded areas are exposed to rain and storm water runoff. Standard conditions require compliance with NPDES sediment control requirements during the construction phase and implementation of the grading construction BMP's for the project. 1 - n) Less than Significant Impact. The Hydrology Report and Water Quality Technical Report indicate that Standard Storm Water Permanent BMPs will be incorporated into the project design to address water quality for the project. Pollutants of concern will be addressed through four different BMPs: Site Design BMPs, Source Control BMPs, BMPs for Individual Priority Project Categories (private road), and Treatment Control BMPs. Site Design BMPs will control post development peak storm runoff discharge rates and velocities to maintain or reduce pre- development downstream erosion and Source Control BMPs will consist of measures to prevent polluted runoff. BMPs along the private road will include a curb opening filtration device, Catch Basin Stormfilter that will filter pollutants of concern from the street's runoff before the runoff is released into a grassy swale or other acceptable Treatment Control BMP where it will be filtered and released into Buena Vista Lagoon. As a result of these project design features, there will be less than significant impact to water quality, site erosion, and pollutant discharge, and no receiving water quality will be adversely affected through implementation of the proposed project. o) Less than Significant Impact. The project will result in an increase in impervious surfaces from 60% with the existing development to 80% under the proposed development. The site has been designed to improve pre- development runoff characteristics resulting in a decrease of 0.37 cfs in total site runoff (exist: 3.69 cfs; proposed 3.32 cfs) and by returning storm drain runoff to historic outfall locations. 16 Rev. 08/02/07 Project Number: CT 05-12/CP 05-11/HDP 05-07/CDP 05-28 Project Name: Ocean Street Residences p) Less than Significant Impact. The project's runoff will be released into a grassy swale or other acceptable Treatment Control BMP where it will be filtered and released into Buena Vista Lagoon. As a result of these project design features, runoff from the site will not adversely impact aquatic, wetland or riparian habitat. q) No Impact. The Geotechnical Investigation indicates that groundwater was encountered at approximately 1 foot MSL, but is generally encountered at 3 feet MSL near the ocean. Groundwater and/or seepage-related problems are not expected. Surface drainage should be directed into properly designed drainage structures and away from pavement edges, building pads, and other moisture-sensitive improvements. The project will not result in the exceedence of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses. IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, on regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact a -c) No Impact. The project includes demolishing an existing 50-unit apartment project and constructing a 35-unit condominium project and would not physically divide an established community or conflict with any applicable land use plans, policy, regulation, or habitat conservation plan. The project site is located over 120 feet from the Ordinary Mean High Water line of the Buena Vista Lagoon site and complies with the Habitat Management Plan and coastal zone requirements for a 100 foot buffer from wetlands. An existing public access point to the beach is located approximately 150 feet west of the site and no additional public access requirements are required for this site. The site is located over 100 feet from a wetland, stream, or estuary (Buena Vista Lagoon) and therefore, is not located within the jurisdictional appeal area of the California Coastal Commission. X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 17 Rev. 08/02/07 Project Number: CT 05-12/CP 05-11/HDP 05-07/CDP 05-28 Project Name: Ocean Street Residences a -b) No Impact. There is no indication that the subject property contains any known mineral resources that would be of future value to the region or residents of the State. XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) 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 Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact X D b & d) Less than Significant Impact. The AT&SF Railroad tracks are located approximately 150 feet east of the subject site. According to the Acoustical and Ground Vibration Site Assessment - Ocean Street Residential Development, Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc., dated May 9, 2005, no sensitive outdoor spaces would be exposed to adverse noise conditions and no acoustical impacts are indicated due to rail activity adjacent to the project site. Ground motion impacts were analyzed and found that ground motion levels would fall into the category of being unperceivable by humans. No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation is required. The anticipated grading operation associated with the proposed tentative map would result in a temporary and minor increase in groundborne vibration and ambient noise levels. Following the conclusion of the grading, the ambient noise level and vibrations is expected to return to pre-existing levels. a, c, e & 0 No Impact. The project consists of a 35-unit residential condominium project which is consistent in use and intensity with the surrounding residential development. As such, the project would not result in sustained ambient noise levels which exceed the established standards. Additionally, the project site is not within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour area of the McClellan-Palomar Airport. 18 Rev. 08/02/07 Project Number: CT 05-12/CP 05-11/HDP 05-07/CDP 05-28 Project Name: Ocean Street Residences 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 Mitigation Incorporated D Less Than Significant . No Impact Impact a) No Impact. The project includes demolishing an existing 50-unit apartment project and constructing a 35-unit condominium project and would not induce growth either directly or indirectly. b-c) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed 35-unit condominium project, at a proposed density of 11.74 du/ac would be developed at slightly above the Growth Management Control Point of 11.5 du/ac for the RMH General Plan Land Use designation, and within the density range of 8-15 du/ac. The resulting 15 unit decrease would be accounted for by depositing 15 dwelling units into the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank for allocation to other projects. Accordingly, there is no net loss of residential unit capacity arid there are adequate properties identified in the Housing Element allowing residential development with a unit capacity, including second dwelling units, adequate to satisfy the City's share of the regional housing need. Because the existing 50-unit apartment project is located within the coastal zone, it is subject to Government Code section 65590 which requires that replacement dwelling units must be provided if the existing residences are occupied by persons and families of low or moderate income (as defined by Section 50093 of the California Health and Safety Code). Evidence has been provided showing that none of the existing units are occupied by persons or families with low or moderate income levels and therefore, no low-income tenants will be displaced. The development proposal is subject to the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and proposes to satisfy this requirement through an off-site "Combined" Inclusionary Housing project. The "Combined" Inclusionary Housing project, located at 3366 Roosevelt Street, would require seven (7) of the ten (10) existing apartment units to be rent-restricted and affordable to lower-income households. 19 Rev. 08/02/07 XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Project Number: CT 05-12/CP 05-11/HDP 05-07/CDP 05-28 Project Name: Ocean Street Residences Less Than Significant No Impact Impact Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? a) i-v) No Impact. The project includes demolishing an existing 50-unit apartment project and constructing a 35- unit condominium project and would result in an overall decrease in the need for public services. Less Than Significant No Impact Impact XIV. RECREATION Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? a-b) No Impact. The project includes demolishing an existing 50-unit apartment project and constructing a 35-unit condominium project and would result in an overall decrease in the use of existing recreational facilities. 20 Rev. 08/02/07 Project Number: CT 05-12/CP 05-11/HDP 05-07/CDP 05-28 Project Name: Ocean Street Residences Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in insufficient parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn- outs, bicycle racks)? a) No Impact. The project will generate 280 Average Daily Trips (ADT) with 22 AM and 28 PM peak hour trips which is less that the 50 peak hour threshold for analyzing roadways or intersections per the SANTEC/ITE guidelines. The Traffic Generation Letter Report for the Ocean Street Residences, LOS Engineering, Inc., dated May 2, 2005 indicates that the proposed reduction of units from 50 existing apartments to 35 condominium units would result in a decrease of daily traffic of-120 ADT, -10 AM peak hour trips, and -12 PM peak hour trips over the existing use. This traffic will utilize the following roadways: Carlsbad Boulevard. Existing traffic on this arterial is 14,868 ADT (2006) and the 2006 peak hour level of service at the arterial intersection impacted by the project is LOS A. The design capacity of the arterial roads affected by the proposed project is 20,000 to 40,000 vehicles per day. The project traffic would represent 0.019% and 0.014 to 0.007% of the existing traffic volume and the design capacity respectively. While the increase in traffic from the proposed project may be slightly noticeable, the street system has been designed and sized to accommodate traffic from the project and cumulative development in the City of Carlsbad. The proposed project would not, therefore, cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The impacts from the proposed project are, therefore, less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and one highway segment in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The existing LOS on these designated roads and highway in Carlsbad is: LOS Rancho Santa Fe Road "A-C" El Camino Real "A-D" Palomar Airport Road "A-D" SR 78 "F" 21 Rev. 08/02/07 Project Number: CT 05-12/CP 05-11/HDP 05-07/CDP 05-28 Project Name: Ocean Street Residences The Congestion Management Program's (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is "E", or LOS "F" if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS "F" in 1990). Accordingly, all designated roads and highway 78 is currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) "E" standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads and highway and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short-term and at buildout. c) No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. It would not, therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed. d) No Impact. All project circulation improvements 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) No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. No impact assessed. f) 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. g) No Impact. The project site is located within 600 feet of Carlsbad Boulevard. North County Transit District (NCTD) provides bus service along Carlsbad Boulevard. No impact assessed. Less Than Significant No Impact Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 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? 22 Rev. 08/02/07 Project Number: CT 05-12/CP 05-11/HDP 05-07/CDP 05-28 Project Name: Ocean Street Residences f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact n m a-g) No Impact. The project includes demolishing an existing 50-unit apartment project and constructing a 35-unit condominium project and would result in an overall decrease in the need for utilities and services systems. The Hydrology Report indicates that the existing storm drain system adequately drains the proposed project in a 100-year storm event. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 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? a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not degrade the quality of the environment. The project site does not contain any sensitive fish or wildlife species. Therefore, the project will not reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species. The project site is currently developed and is surrounded by existing residential development on the south and west; a tennis court to the east; and an open space lot to the north which serves as a buffer between the project site and the Buena Vista Lagoon. The site is not identified by any habitat conservation plan as containing a protected, rare or endangered plant or animal community. The project will not threaten a plant or animal community. To avoid impacts to birds during the nesting season (ie., January 1 through August 31 for most species, including raptors), a mitigation measure is included requiring that a focused avian nesting survey shall be performed by a qualified wildlife biologist within 72 hours prior to tree removal in accordance with the Migratory Treaty Act (16 U.S.G. 703-712). There are no historic structures on the site and the project will not result in the elimination of any important examples of California History or prehistory. Cultural resources could be present on site, and a mitigation measure 23 Rev. 08/02/07 Project Number: CT 05-12/CP 05-11/HDP 05-07/CDP 05-28 Project Name: Ocean Street Residences is included requiring that an archeologist and a Native American representative be present to monitor initial grading in the area identified in the geology report as undocumented fill/alluvium. If archeological resources are encountered, the monitor would have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect grading, in order to document the cultural material. Paleontological resources could be present on site, and a mitigation measure is included requiring that a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the site and to salvage exposed fossils. With the proposed mitigation measures, the project will have a less than significant cumulative impact. b) Less Than Significant Impact. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional growth for the greater San Diego area, and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into SANDAG projections. Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc., are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the region. All of the City's development standards and regulations are consistent with the region wide standards. The City's standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standard, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that development within the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a cumulatively considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As described above, the project would contribute to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the development is implemented. The County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The CMA had determined, based on the City's growth projections in the General Plan, that these designated roadways will function at acceptable levels of service in the short-term and at build-out. The project is consistent with the City's growth projections, and therefore, the cumulative impacts from the project to the regional circulation system are less than significant. With regard to any other potential impacts associated with the project, City standards and regulations will ensure that development of the site will not result in any significant cumulatively considerable impacts. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The existing structure was found to have materials containing asbestos, and a mitigation measure is included requiring the preparation of an asbestos investigation and mitigation report. The mitigation report will identify appropriate clean-up and disposal requirements necessary to avoid releasing asbestos into the air. Any potential impact from asbestos can be mitigated to a level less than significant. The future residential development on the site will be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, regional and City regulations, which will ensure that the development of the site will not result in an adverse impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Based upon the residential nature of the project and the fact that re-development of the site will comply with City standards, the project will not result in any direct or indirect substantial adverse environmental effects on human beings. XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 24 Rev. 08/02/07 Project Number: CT 05-12/CP 05-11/HDP 05-07/CDP 05-28 Project Name: Ocean Street Residences 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, dated March 1994. 2. Carlsbad General Plan, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, dated March 1994. 3. City of Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 21 Zoning, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, as updated. 4. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, final approval dated November 2004. 5. Draft Biological Resources Technical Report for the Ocean Street Property, Dudek & Associates, Inc., dated November 2005. 6. Archeological Resources Study - 2303 Ocean Street, Affmis, dated May 2005. 7. Geotechnical Investigation - Ocean Street Condominium, GEOCON, Inc., dated September 3, 2004. 8. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report - 2303 Ocean Street, NAC, dated October 6, 2003. 9. Hydrology Report - Ocean Street Condominium, BHA, Inc., dated May 11, 2005. 10. Water Quality Technical Report - Ocean Street Condominium, BHA, Inc.,,dated revised July 26, 2007. 11. City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992. 12. Acoustical and Ground Vibration Site Assessment - Ocean Street Residential Development, Investigative Science and Engineering, Inc., dated May 9, 2005. 13. Traffic Generation Letter Report for the Ocean Street Residences, LOS Engineering, Inc., dated May 2, 2005. LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1. To avoid impacts to nesting birds, construction should be timed, where feasible, to avoid the bird nesting season (ie., January 1 through August 31 for most species, including raptors). However, if tree removal occurs during this time period, a focused avian nesting survey shall be performed by a qualified wildlife biologist within 72 hours prior to tree removal in accordance with the Migratory Treaty Act (16 U.S.G. 703-712) Construction should not commence until a qualified wildlife biologist has inspected all of the trees onsite for nesting birds. If any active nests are detected, the area will be flagged, along with a buffer ranging from 25 to 300 feet (specific width to be determined by the project biologist) and will be avoided until the nesting cycle is complete. 2. To avoid potential impacts to cultural resources, an archeologist and a Native American representative shall be retained to monitor initial grading in the area identified in the geology report as undocumented fill/alluvium. If archeological resources are encountered, the monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect grading, in order to document the cultural material discovered. If cultural material is found and collected, it shall be curated at the San Diego Archeological Center (or other appropriate repository) or repatriated to the San Luis Rey band if they so desire. 25 Rev. 01/02/07 Project Number: CT 05-12/CP 05-11/HDP 05-07/CDP 05-28 Project Name: Ocean Street Residences 3. To avoid potential impacts to paleontological resources, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: a. Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained to perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources. b. A copy of the paleontologist's report shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to issuance of a grading permit. c. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils present in the geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for laboratory processing through fine screens. d. The paleontologist shall make periodic reports to the Planning Director during the grading process. e. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts. f. All fossils collected may be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. g. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of the project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer. 4. To reduce the impact associated with the potential release of asbestos, an asbestos investigation and mitigation report shall be prepared prior to issuance of a demolition or grading permit, whichever occurs first. The mitigation report shall identify appropriate clean-up and disposal requirements necessary to avoid releasing asbestos into the air. All trash and debris within the project shall be disposed of off-site, in accordance with current local, state, and federal disposal regulations. Evidence that this measure has been . implemented shall be submitted to the City of Carlsbad Planning and Building Departments prior to issuance of a Building Permit 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/CROJECT. ' Date 26 Rev. 01/02/07 Page 1 of 3 PROJECT NAME: OCEAN STREET RESIDENCES APPROVAL DATE: FILE NUMBERS: CT 05-12/CP 05-11/HDP 05-07/CDP 05-28 The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). Mitigation Measure Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks To avoid impacts to nesting birds, construction should be timed, where feasible, to avoid the bird nesting season (ie., January 1 through August 31 for most species, including raptors). However, if tree removal occurs during this time period, a focused avian nesting survey shall be performed by a qualified wildlife biologist within 72 hours prior to tree removal in accordance with the Migratory Treaty Act (16 U.S.G. 703-712) Construction should not commence until a qualified wildlife biologist has inspected all of the trees onsite for nesting birds. If any active nests are detected, the area will be flagged, along with a buffer ranging from 25 to 300 feet (specific width to be determined by the project biologist) and will be avoided until the nesting cycle is complete. Prior to construction or removal of trees during the bird nesting season. Planning and Engineering Departments To avoid potential impacts to cultural resources, an archeologist and a Native American representative shall be retained to monitor initial grading in the area identified in the geology report as undocumented fill/ alluvium. If archeological resources are encountered, the monitor shall have Prior to issuance of a grading permit. Ongoing Planning and Engineering Departments 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. Page 2 of 3 Mitigation Measure Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks the authority to temporarily halt or redirect grading, in order to document the cultural material discovered. If cultural material is found and collected, it shall be curated at the San Diego Archeological Center (or other appropriate repository) or repatriated to the San Luis Rey band if they so desire. during grading operations. 3. To avoid potential impacts to paleontological resources, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: a. Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained to perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources. b. A copy of the paleontologist's report shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to issuance of a grading permit. c. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils present in the geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for laboratory processing through fine screens. d.The paleontologist shall make periodic reports to the Planning Director during the grading Prior to issuance of a grading permit. Ongoing during grading operations. Planning and Engineering Departments 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. Page 3 of 3 Mitigation Measure process. e. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts. f. All fossils collected may be donated to a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum. g. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of the project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer. 4. To reduce the impact associated with the potential release of asbestos, an asbestos investigation and mitigation report shall be prepared prior to issuance of a demolition or grading permit. The mitigation report shall identify appropriate clean-up and disposal requirements necessary to avoid releasing asbestos into the air. All trash and debris within the project shall be disposed of off-site, in accordance with current local, state, and federal disposal regulations. Evidence that this measure has been implemented shall submitted prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Monitoring Type Mitigation Report prior to issuance of a demolition or grading permit. Evidence of implementa -tion prior to issuance of a building permit. Monitoring Department Planning and Building Departments' Shown on Plans Verified , Implementation 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. STATE OF CALIFORNIA Arnold Sohwg>f7f>nffinpf Governor NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 915 CAPITOL MALL, ROOM 364 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 (916)653-6251 Fax (916) 657-5390 Web Site www.nahc.ca.gov e-mail: ds_nahc@pacbell.net December 14,2007 Ms. Barbara Kennedy CITY OF CARLSBAD 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Re: SCH#2007111102: CEQA Notice of Completion: proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration) for Ocean Street Residence CT05-12/CP 05-11/HDP 05-07/CDP 05-28: Citv of Carlsbad: San Diego County. California Dear Mr. Kennedy: The Native American Heritage Commission is the state agency designated to protect California's Native American Cultural Resources. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that any project that causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, that includes archaeological resources, is a 'significant effect1 requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) per CEQA guidelines § 15064.5(b)(c). In order to comply with this provision, the lead agency is required to assess whether the project will have an adverse impact on these resources within the 'area of potential effect (APE)', and if so, to mitigate that effect To adequately assess the project-related impacts on historical resources, the Commission recommends the following action: V Contact the appropriate California Historic Resources Information Center (CHRIS). Contact information for the Information Center nearestypu is available from the State Office of Historic Preservation (9.16/653-7278)7 http://www.ohp.parks.ca.aov/1068/files/IC%20Roster.pdf The record search will determine: • (fa part or the entire APE has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. • If any known cultural resources have already been recorded in or adjacent to the APE. • If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE. • If a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present. V If an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey. • The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measurers should be submitted immediately to the planning department All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for pubic disclosure. « The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional archaeological Information Center. V Contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for * A Sacred Lands File (SLF) search of the project area and information on tribal contacts in the project vicinity that may have additional cultural resource information. Please provide this office with the following citation format to assist with the Sacred Lands File search request USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle citation with name, township, range and section: . • The NAHC advises the use of Native American Monitors to ensure proper identification and care given cultural resources that may be discovered. The NAHC recommends that contact be made with Native American Contacts on the attached list to get their input on potential project impact (APE). In some cases, the existence of a Native American cultural resources may be known only to a local tribe(s). V Lack of surface evidence of archeological resources does not preclude their subsurface existence. • Lead agencies should include in their mitigation plan provisions for the identification and evaluation of accidentally discovered archeological resources, per California Environmental .Quality Act (CEQA) §15064.5 (f). In areas of identified archaeological sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American, with knowledge in cultural resources, should monrtor all ground-disturbing activities. • Lead agencies should include in their mitigation plan provisions for the disposition of recovered artifacts, in , consultation w^ -• ; : . i ^;; :/ ,.•;;>>• V Lead agencies should include provisions for discovery of Native American human remains or unmarked cemeteries in their mitigation plans. * CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(d) requires the lead agency to work with the Native Americans identified by this Commission if the initial Study identifies the presence or likely presence of Native American human remains within the APE. CEQA Guidelines provide for agreements with Native American, identified by the NAHC, to assure the appropriate and dignified treatment of Native American human remains and any associated grave liens. V Health and Safety Code §7050.5, Public Resources Code §5097.98 and Sec. §15064.5 (d) of the CEQA Guidelines mandate procedures to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. V Lead agencies should consider avoidance, as defined in S 15370 of the CEQA Guidelines, when significant cultural resources are discovered during the course of project planning and implementation ^ Please feel free to contact me at (916) 653-6251 if you have any questions. Dave Singl Program Attachment List of Native American Contacts Cp: State Clearinghouse Native American Contacts San Diego County December 14, 2007 Ewiiaapaayp Tribal Office Harlan Pinto, Sr., Chairperson PO Box 2250 Kumeyaay Alpine . CA 91903-2250 wmicklin@leaningrock.net(619) 445-6315-voice (619) 445-9126-fax Kumeyaay Cultural Historic Committee Ron Christman 56 Viejas Grade Road Diegueno/Kumeyaay Alpine , CA 92001 (619)445-0385 Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay Nation Leroy J. Elliott, Chairperson PO Box 1302 Kumeyaay Boulevard , CA 91905 (619)766-4930 (619) 766-4957 Fax Campo Kumeyaay Nation H. Paul Cuero, Jr., Chairperson 36190 Church Road, Suite 1 Kumeyaay Campo , CA 91906 chairgoff@aol.com(619)478-9046 (619) 478-5818 Fax San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians Allen E. Lawson, Chairperson PO Box 365 Diegueno Valley Center > CA 92082 (760) 749-3200 (760) 749-3876 Fax Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians Mark Romero, Chairperson P.O Box 270 Diegueno Santa Ysabel > CA 92070 mesagrandeband@msn.com(760)782-3818 (760) 782-9092 Fax Viejas Band of Mission Indians Bobby L. Barrett, Chairperson PO Box 908 Alpine . CA 91903 daguilar@vieias-nsn.gov(619)445-3810 (619) 445-5337 Fax Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Mission Indians Carmen Lucas Diegueno/Kumeyaay P.O. Box 775 Diegueno - Pine Valley , CA 91962 (619)709-4207 This list Is current only as of the date of this document Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list is only applicable for contacting local Native American with regard to cultural resources for the proposed SSCHI2007111102; CEQA Notice of Completion; proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for Ocean Street Residence Project CT-05-12/CP 05-11/HDP 05-07/CDP 05-28; City of Carlsbad; San Diego County, California. Native American Contacts San Diego County December 14, 2007 Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee Steve Banegas, Spokesperson Clint Linton 1095 Barona Road Diegueno/Kumeyaay P.O. Box 507 Diegueno/Kumeyaay Lakeside . CA 92040 Santa Ysabel , CA 92070 (619)742-5587 (760)803-5694 (619)443-0681 FAX cjlinton73@aol.com Santa Ysabel Band of Diegueno Indians Mel Vernon Devon Reed Lomayesva, Esq, Tribal Attorney San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians PO Box 701 Diegueno 1044 North Ivy Street Luiseno Santa Ysabel , CA 92070 Escondido , CA 92026 drlomayevsa@verizon.net (760) 746-8692 (760) 765-0845 melvern@aol.com (760) 765-0320 Fax San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians Carmen Mojado, Co-Chair 1889 Sunset Drive Luiseno Vista , CA 92081 (760) 724-8505 San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians Mark Mojado, Cultural Resources 1889 Sunset Drive Luiseno Vista . CA 92081 Cupeno (760) 724-8505 (760) 586-4858 (cell) This list Is current only as of the date of this document Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined In Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list Is only applicable for contacting local Native American with regard to cultural resources for the proposed SSCH*2007111102; CEQA Notice of Completion; proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for Ocean Street Residence Project CT-05-12/CP 05-11/HDP 05-07/CDP 05-28; City of Carlsbad; San Diego County, California. City of Carlsbad Planning Department January 29, 2008 Dave Singleton Native American Heritage Commission 915 Capitol Mall, Room 364 Sacramento, CA 95814 SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE OCEAN STREET RESIDENCES PROJECT IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (SCH# 2007111102; OCEAN STREET RESIDENCES), Thank you for your comment letter dated December 14, 2007 on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Ocean Street Residences project located north of Ocean Street and west of Mountain View Drive at 2303 Ocean Street in Carlsbad, California. The development proposal consists of the demolition of the existing 50-unit apartment complex and the construction of a new 35-unit airspace condominium project with underground parking. As a part of the proposal and Archaeological Resources Study, dated May 2005, was conducted for the subject property that consisted of a survey to assess the presence of cultural resources that would be affected by the proposed project. Pursuant to the study, no historic or archaeological resources were identified during the site reconnaissance or within the background research. However, given the proximity of the subject site to the lagoon and another previously identified cultural resource in the general vicinity, there is a potential for subsurface cultural resources. As a result, Mitigation Measure No. 2 was included to avoid potential impacts to cultural resources. The mitigation measure requires that an archaeologist and Native American representative be retained to monitor initial grading in the area identified in the geology report as undocumented fill/alluvium. If you have any questions, please contact me at 760-602-4626. Sincerely, BARBARA KENNEDY, AICP Associate Planner BK:sm 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us Department of Toxic Substances Control LindaS. Adams Maureen F. Gorsen, Director s ;,''-,'•• '- Arnold Schwarzenegger Secretary for 5796 Corporate Avenue /'-'., Governor Environmental Protection Cypress, California 90630 / ; ' % December 21 , 2007 Ms. Barbara Kennedy City of Carlsbad, Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ND) FOR OCEAN STREET RESIDENCES CT 05-1 2/CP 05-1 1/HDP05-07/CDP 05-28 (SCH# 20071 11 102) Dear Ms. Kennedy: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your submitted document for the above-mentioned project. As stated in your document: "The 3.05 acre site is currently developed with 50 apartment units. Existing detached single-family and condominium development is located to the south and west of the site, a tennis court is located to the east of the site: and an open space lot, single-family residence and the Buena Vista Lagoon are located to the north of the site. The proposed project includes a Tentative Tract Map (CT 05-12), Condominium Permit (CP 05-11), Hillside Development Permit (HDP 05-07, and Coastal Development Permit (CDP 05-28) for the demolition of the existing apartments and construction of a new 35-unit airspace condominium project with underground parking. Grading for the project includes 13,200 cy of cut, 5,800 cy of fill, and 7,400 cy of export ". Based on the review of the submitted document DTSC has the following comments: 1 ) The ND should identify and determine whether current or historic uses at the project area may have resulted in any release of hazardous wastes/substances. 2) The document states that the ND would identify any known or potentially contaminated sites within the proposed project area. For all identified sites, the ND should evaluate whether conditions at the site may pose a threat to human health or the environment. Following are the databases of some of the regulatory agencies: • National Priorities List (NPL): A list maintained by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). ® Printed on Recycled Paper Ms. Barbara Kennedy December 21, 2007 Page 2 • Site Mitigation Program Property Database (formerly CalSites): A Database primarily used by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control. • Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS): A database of RCRA facilities that is maintained by U.S. EPA. • Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS): A database, of CERCLA sites that is maintained by U.S.EPA. • Solid Waste Information System (SWIS): A database provided by the California Integrated Waste Management Board which consists of both open as well as closed and inactive solid waste disposal facilities and transfer stations. • Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) / Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanups (SLIC): A list that is maintained by Regional Water Quality Control Boards. • Local Counties and Cities maintain lists for hazardous substances cleanup sites and leaking underground storage tanks. • The United States Army Corps of Engineers, 911 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, 90017, (213) 452-3908, maintains a list of Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS). 3) The ND should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation for any site that may be contaminated, and the government agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. If hazardous materials or . wastes were stored at the site, an environmental assessment should be conducted to determine if a release has occurred. If so, further studies should be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the contamination, and the potential threat to public health and/or the environment should be evaluated. It may be necessary to determine if an expedited response action is required to reduce existing or potential threats to public health or the environment. If no immediate threat exists, the final remedy should be implemented in compliance with state lows, regulations and policies. 4) The project construction may require soil excavation and soil filling in certain areas. Appropriate sampling is required prior to disposal of the excavated soil. Ms. Barbara Kennedy December 21, 2007 Page 3 If the soil is contaminated, properly dispose of it rather than placing it in another location. Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) may be applicable to these soils. Also, if the project proposes to import soil to backfill the areas excavated, proper sampling should be conducted to make sure that the imported soil is free of contamination. 5) Human health and the environment of sensitive receptors should be protected during the construction or demolition activities. A study of the site overseen by the appropriate government agency might have to be conducted to determine if there are, have been, or will be, any releases of hazardous materials that may pose a risk to human health or the environment. 6) If during construction/demolition of the project, soil and/or groundwater contamination is suspected, construction/demolition in the area should cease and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented. If it is determined that contaminated soil and/or groundwater exist, the ND should identify how any required investigation and/or remediation will be conducted, and the appropriate government agency to provide regulatory oversight. 7) If buildings, other structures, or associated uses; asphalt or concrete-paved surface areas are being planned to be demolished, an investigation should be conducted for the presence of other related hazardous chemicals, lead-based paints or products, mercury, and asbestos containing materials (ACMs). If other hazardous chemicals, lead-based paints or products, mercury or ACMs are identified, proper precautions should be taken during demolition activities. Additionally, the contaminants should be remediated in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies 8) If weed abatement occurred, onsite soils may contain herbicide residue. If so, proper investigation and remedial actions, if necessary, should be conducted at the site prior to construction of the project. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. Al Shami, Project Manager, at (714) 484-5472 or "ashami@DTSC.ca.gov". Sincerely, Greg Holmes Unit Chief Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch - Cypress Office Ms. Barbara Kennedy December 21, 2007 Page 4 cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research (via e-mail) State Clearinghouse Mr. GuentherW. Moskat, Chief (via e-mail) Planning and Environmental Analysis Section CEQA Tracking Center Department of Toxic Substances Control CEQA #1966 City of Carlsbad Planning Department January 29, 2008 Greg Holmes Department of Toxic Substances Control 5796 Corporate Avenue Cypress, CA 90630 SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE OCEAN STREET RESIDENCES PROJECT IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (SCH# 2007111102; OCEAN STREET RESIDENCES) Thank you for your comment letter dated December 21, 2007 on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Ocean Street Residences project located north of Ocean Street and west of Mountain View Drive at 2303 Ocean Street in Carlsbad, California. The development proposal consists of the demolition of the existing 50-unit apartment complex and the construction of a new 35-unit airspace condominium project with underground parking. As a part of the proposal a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report (ESA), dated October 6, 2003, was conducted for the subject property concerning the environmental conditions as they exist on the property. Pursuant to the Phase I ESA, no current or historic uses that may have resulted in any release of hazardous materials were encountered during the site reconnaissance, database/record research, or reported during interviews with representatives of the public, property management and regulatory agencies. The Phase I ESA concluded that suspect and previously confirmed asbestos containing materials were observed at the subject property. As a result, Mitigation Measure No. 4 was included to reduce the impact associated with the potential release of asbestos. The mitigation measure requires that an investigation and mitigation report be prepared prior to the issuance of a demolition or grading permit that will identify appropriate clean-up and disposal requirements necessary to avoid releasing asbestos into the air. The mitigation measure also requires that all trash and debris within the project shall be disposed of off-site, in accordance with current local, state and federal disposal regulations. Evidence that the mitigation measure has been implemented shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. If you have any questions, please contact me at 760-602-4626. Sincerely, BARBARA KENNEDY, AICP Associate Planner BK:sm 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us