HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-10-17; Planning Commission; Resolution 6915
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
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE
APPROVAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CDP
11-10, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT HDP 11-02,
SPECIAL USE PERMIT SUP 11-03 AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN PERMIT HMP 11-04 TO ADD A SOUTHBOUND LANE, CURB, GUTTER, SIDEWALK, BIKE
LANE, STREETLIGHTS, AND UTILITIES TO A 1,600-FOOT
LENGTH OF EL CAMINO REAL BETWEEN KELLY DRIVE
AND CRESTVIEW DRIVE IN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: EL CAMINO REAL SOUTHBOUND
WIDENING
CASE NO.: CDP 11-10/HDP 11-02/SUP 11-03/HMP 11-04 WHEREAS, Rancho Costera, LLC, “Developer” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
The El Camino Real southbound right-of-way south of Kelly Drive and north of Crestview Drive
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on October 17, 2012, hold a duly
noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6915
PC RESO NO. 6915 -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
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Exhibit “MND,” and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Exhibit “MMRP” according to Exhibits “Notice of Intent (NOI),” and “Environmental Impact
Assessment Form – Initial Study (EIA),” attached hereto and made a part hereof,
based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the EL CAMINO REAL SOUTHBOUND WIDENING - CDP 11-10/HDP 11-02/SUP 11-03/HMP 11-04 the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to APPROVAL of the various project components; and
b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection
Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and
d. based on the EIA and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project
will have a significant effect on the environment. 2. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed
to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the
degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project. . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
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 October 17, 2012, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Chairperson Schumacher, Conunissioners Arnold, Black,
L'Heureux, Nygaard, and Siekmann
Commissioner Scully
~~a~)
MICHAEL SCHUMACHER, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
(ltt
DONNEU
City Planner
PC RESONO. 6915 -3-
FILE COPY
Community & Economic Development www.carlsbadca.gov
CASE NAME:
CASE NO:
PROJECT LOCATION:
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
ECR Southbound Widening
COP 11-10/ HOP 11-02/ SUP 11-02/ HMP 11-04
The right-of-way for the southbound lanes of El Camino Real between
Kelly Drive to the north and Crestview Drive to the south.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project includes improvements to portions of the existing southbound
side of El Camino Real between Kelly Drive and Crestview Drive to its ultimate buildout condition of
three southbound lanes, a bicycle lane, curb, gutter, 5 foot sidewalk, and street lights within a 63 foot
southbound right-of-way for a distance of approximately 1,600 lineal feet. Completing the buildout
condition will also involve various utilities such as water and redaimed water lines, storm drains, gas
lines and sewer lines.
PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the
above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad.
As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the
environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant
before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid
the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that
the project "as revised" may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated
Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Division, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California
92008. Comments from the public are invited. Pursuant to Section 15204 of the CEQA Guidelines, in
reviewing Mitigated Negat ive Declarations, persons and public agencies should focus on the proposed
finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. If persons and public
agencies believe that the project may have a significant effect, they should: (1) identify the specific
effect; (2) explain why they believe the effect would occur; and (3) explain why they believe the effect
would be significant. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Division within 30 days of the
date of this notice.
The propos.ed project and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption
by the Planning Commission. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are
scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Christer Westman in the Planning Division at (760)
602-4614.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD
PUBLISH DATE
Planning Division
July 3. 2012-August 2, 2012
July3, 2012
1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559
CASE NAME:
CASE NO:
PROJECT LOCATION:
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
El Camino Rea l Southbound Widening
CDP 11-10/HDP 11-02/SUP 11-02/HMP 11-04
The right-of-way for the southbound lanes of El Camino Real between Kelly Drive to
the north and Crestview Drive to the south
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project includes improvements to portions of the existing southbound side of El
Camino Real between Kelly Drive and Crestview Drive to its ultimate buildout condition of three southbound
lanes. a bicycle lane. curb. gutter. 5 foot sidewalk. and street lights within a 63 foot southbound right-of-way
for a distance of approximately 1.600 lineal feet. Completing the buildout condition will also involve various
utilities such as water and reclaimed water lines. storm drains. gas lines and sewer lines.
Earthwork necessary for the project includes approximately 144.000 cubic yards of cut and 19.000 cubic
yards of fill. The majoritv of cut is along an existing cut slope south of Lisa Street and north of Crestview
Drive. Stabilization of that cut requires the installation of a retaining wall approximately 250 feet in length
and up to 8.5 feet in height. The wall will be finished with a naturalized boulderscape architectural
treatment.
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:
D 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 the attached sheet
have been added to the project.
The proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at least
one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately ana lyzed 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).
D Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT
be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in
the Planning Division, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
ADOPTED: [CLICK HERE date!
[CLICK HERE Administrative Approval. PC/CC Resolution No .. or CC Ordinance No.I
ATIEST:
DON NEU
City Planner
pursuant to
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM – INITIAL STUDY
CASE NO: CDP 11-10
DATE: January 9, 2012
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: ECR Southbound Widening
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Christer Westman (760) 602-4614
4. PROJECT LOCATION: The right-of-way of the southbound lanes of El Camino Real between Kelly Drive to the north and Crestview Drive to the south.
5. PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: Shapell Homes, 8383 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 700 Beverly Hills CA 90211
6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: N/A
7. ZONING: N/A
8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements): Army Corps of Engineers (Section 404 Nationwide Permit); California Department of Fish and Game (Section 1602 Streambed Alteration
Agreement)
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
The project area is located on the west side of El Camino Real south of Kelly Drive and north of
Crestview Drive. The project includes improvements to portions of the existing southbound side of El Camino Real between Kelly Drive and Crestview Drive to its ultimate buildout condition of three southbound lanes, a bicycle lane, curb, gutter, 5 foot sidewalk, and street lights within a 63
foot southbound right-of-way for a distance of approximately 1,600 lineal feet. Completing the buildout condition will also involve various utilities such as water and reclaimed water lines, storm drains, gas lines and sewer lines.
Earthwork necessary for the project includes approximately 144,000 cubic yards of cut and
19,000 cubic yards of fill. The majority of cut is along an existing cut slope south of Lisa Street
and north of Crestview Drive. Stabilization of that cut requires the installation of a retaining wall approximately 250 feet in length and up to 8.5 feet in height. The wall will be finished with a naturalized boulderscape architectural treatment. The right-of-way is adjacent to Residential
Low-Medium Density and Local Shopping Center Land Uses.
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
2 Rev. 10/18/10
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 and Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards/Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities & Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
3 Rev. 10/18/10
DETERMINATION.
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.
Planner Signature
City Planner’s Signature
Date
Date
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
4 Rev. 10/18/10
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.
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
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
4 Rev. 10/18/10
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.
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
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
4 Rev. 10/18/10
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.
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
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
5 Rev. 10/18/10
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.
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
6 Rev. 10/18/10
Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact
No
Impact I. 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?
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No Impact. In 1988, the City prepared Scenic Corridor Guidelines to identify roadways and transportation routes within the City to be designated as scenic corridors, and to suggest methods to preserve and enhance the character of
those corridors (City of Carlsbad 1994). According to the City’s Circulation Element (1994), Carlsbad has adopted four categories of scenic corridors. Transportation routes with potential corridor status are identified below;
however, currently, El Camino Real is the only designated roadway within the City for which a set of development standards have been adopted.
Community Theme Corridors. These connect Carlsbad with adjacent municipalities and present the City of Carlsbad
to persons entering and passing thought the community. Community Theme Corridors include El Camino Real, Carlsbad Boulevard, Palomar Airport Road, La Costa Avenue, and Melrose Drive.
Community Scenic Corridors. These roadways interconnect major subareas of the present and planned Carlsbad
community. They include College Boulevard, Cannon Road, Carlsbad Village Drive, Faraday Avenue, I-5, La Costa Avenue, Olivenhain Road/Rancho Santa Fe Road, and Poinsettia Lane/Carrillo Way.
Natural Open Space and Recreation Corridors. These offer spectacular views of waterscapes, landforms, wildlife,
and the Pacific Ocean, and include Adams Street/Park Drive, Batiquitos Drive, and Jefferson Street (the portion adjacent to the Buena Vista Lagoon).
Railroad Corridor. This corridor presents the City to people passing through by rail, on the Atchison, Topeka, &
Santa Fe (AT&SF) Railroad.
While El Camino Real has been designated as a Community Theme Corridor by the City, there are no officially designated scenic vistas identified in the City’s General Plan (1994), and no scenic vistas are afforded while driving
along the project segment of El Camino Real. Therefore, no impacts to a scenic vista would result.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? Less Than Significant Impact. As described above in response a), there are no officially designated scenic
highways located within the project vicinity, and there are no State scenic highways in Carlsbad, but the City has designated El Camino Real as a Scenic Corridor through an Overlay Zone. El Camino Real is also listed under the
Community Theme Corridor category in the General Plan.
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
7 Rev. 10/18/10
The Open Space and Conservation Element’s Special Resource Protection Implementing Policies and Action Programs C4 states that the City shall “Designate for preservation as open space those areas that provide unique
visual amenities and define the urban form as contained in the Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan. These areas shall include agriculture, hillsides, ridges, valleys, canyons, beaches, lagoons, lakes and other unique resources that provide visual and physical relief to the cityscape by creating natural contrasts to the built-up
manmade scene” (City of Carlsbad 1994). No portion of land within the project area located to the west of El Camino Real is agriculture, hillsides, ridges, valleys, canyons, beaches, lagoons, lakes and other unique resources that provide visual and physical relief to the cityscape. No designated Special Resource Protection areas are located
in the project site. The project site is also subject to the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards (ECRCDS). The intent of
these standards is to maintain and enhance the appearance of the El Camino Real roadway area, and reflect the existence of certain identified characteristics which the City considers worthy of preservation (City of Carlsbad 1984). The project site is located in Areas 2 and 3 of the ECRCDS. The project involves improvements and
widening of this segment of El Camino Real, and many of the standards discussed in the regulations pertain to such details as signage, setback from roadway, and building height, which do not apply to the proposed project. The project would incorporate other design features such as sidewalks and would not modify the existing identified design theme of suburban residential. Overall, the project would not conflict with the El Camino Real Corridor
Development Standards, and impacts would be less than significant.
As described in the project description, a retaining wall would be required along the west side of El Camino Real south of Lisa Street and north of Crestview Drive. The wall reaches 8.5 feet in height, and would be constructed with a naturalized boulderscape architectural treatment and landscaping screening. A hydro seed mix would be applied on both the western and eastern sides of the proposed wall. Due to the proposed boulderscape treatment, the
retaining wall would be constructed to look similar to existing conditions, and over time, landscaping adjacent to the wall would mature and further soften its visual appearance. No other scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings would be affected. The existing overhead power lines along the west side will be
put underground, thereby removing the poles and wires from existing views, thereby creating a beneficial impact. A landscaped median and a proposed parkway on the west side of the roadway (including sidewalks and 4 1/2 feet of planted area) would also result in beneficial visual effects to the corridor. For these reasons, visual impacts would
be less than significant.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project entails the widening of an existing roadway. The additional lanes and project components along this stretch of El Camino Real would not alter adjacent land uses. As such, the
project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site or its surroundings, and impacts would be less than significant.
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact. Lighting is currently provided along this stretch of El Camino Real. The project would replace the existing lighting to the ultimate width of El Camino Real. The lighting would be installed per applicable City standards for wattage and spacing which permits each light post to be staggered at 300-foot intervals
along both sides of El Camino Real and produce up to 22,000 lumens per light post. Therefore the amount of light
and glare would not substantially differ from existing conditions, and impacts would be less than significant.
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
8 Rev. 10/18/10
Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact
No
Impact II. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST 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. In determining whether impacts to forest resources,
including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled
by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land,
including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon
measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.) Would
the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. As stated in the Open Space and Conservation Element of the City’s General Plan, it is the City’s intention to support and utilize all measures available to secure agricultural land uses for as long as possible prior to
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
9 Rev. 10/18/10
development, and to promote the long-term economic viability of agricultural uses. There are only a limited number of areas within the City that are considered to possess important farmlands as defined by the California Department
of Conservation. The City consists mainly of Urban and Built-Up Land along the western, southern, and northwestern portions of the City, with large areas of Other Land interspersed throughout the eastern and central portions (City of Carlsbad 1994).
According to the State of California Department of Conservation (DOC) San Diego County Important Farmland 1998 Map, the proposed project site and the areas immediately to the west are designated as Urban and Built Up
Land. No Prime, Unique or Farmland of Statewide Importance would be converted as a result of implementing the proposed project, and no impacts would result.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. According to the City of Carlsbad’s Zoning Map dated July 25, 2006, the El Camino Real is restricted
by a Scenic Preservation Overlay. It should also be noted that the designated zoning for the surrounding land uses includes One-Family Residential (R-1), Residential Agriculture (R-A-10,000), General Commercial (C-2-Q), and Residential Mobile Home Park (RMHP). Although there is an adjacent R-A-10,000 zone adjacent to El Camino Real within the project area, no agricultural uses have been active on that property, and the project is limited to the
El Camino Real right-of-way and does not cross the R-A-10,000 zoned property. Therefore the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses or any Williamson Act contracts in the City, and no
impacts would result.
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. As described in responses a) and b) above, the proposed widening improvements to El Camino Real would not result in the conversion of farmland at the proposed project site or surrounding areas. No other changes
to the existing environment would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use, and no impact would result from implementing the proposed project.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No Impact. The project area does not include any forest land.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. The project area does not include any agricultural or forest land.
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
10 Rev. 10/18/10
Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact
No
Impact III. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the
project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
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 (PM10). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in
inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality
Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG).
A Plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state-
mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by
the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly
regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996.
The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city’s and the
County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that
the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact.
Section 15125(d) 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
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
11 Rev. 10/18/10
management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California
Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following:
Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area?
Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan?
The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan and will in no
way conflict with 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 2006 through December 2010, indicate that the most recent
air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (a total of 1 day 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 along the improved El Camino Real southbound lanes will be consistent with the RAQS and TCMs since the project will not generate additional ADT above what has already been programmed, rather the project will eliminate segments of narrow roadway allowing the existing and future traffic to flow more freely.
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 short term emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the proposed project would be minimal since they are short term. 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 15064(h)(3), the proposed project’s incremental contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable. 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. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the vicinity of the project. No
impact is assessed.
e) No Impact. The construction of the proposed project could generate fumes from the operation of construction equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would be short-term or
transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not considered substantial.
Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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?
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
12 Rev. 10/18/10
Potentially
Significant Impact
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian,
aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, 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 local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
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? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A Biological Resources Technical Report
(Planning Systems 2011) was prepared for the project. No sensitive animals were observed within or around the study area.
Indirect impacts to wildlife species include direct impacts to vegetation communities and land covers listed as
Habitat Management Plan (HMP) habitats in the City HMP. The project includes impacts to 1.15 acres of Developed land, 0.04 acre of Mule-fat Scrub, 1.14 acres of Disturbed land, and 0.10 acre of Southern Willow Scrub.
Both Mule-fat Scrub and Southern Willow Scrub are vegetation communities that are listed as HMP habitats in the City HMP, and are considered significant. The loss of 0.04 acre of Mule-fat Scrub and 0.10 acre of Southern
Willow Scrub shall be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1 which must include a 1:1 creation component. The mitigation measure would reduce impacts to a level below significance.
Other potential indirect impacts to wildlife species include construction-related edge effects such as dust which
could disrupt plant vitality in the short-term or construction-related soil erosion and water runoff. Edge effects generally would only occur along the interface between the project impact area and adjacent sensitive habitat,
including southern willow scrub, Mulefat scrub and jurisdictional stream channels. However, standard construction BMPs and construction-related minimization measures to control dust, erosion, and runoff will be implemented and
will ameliorate these effects. Therefore, significant indirect impacts to sensitive plant and wildlife species would be avoided through these measures.
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
13 Rev. 10/18/10
Regarding sensitive plant species, the Biological Resources Technical Report concludes that no sensitive or narrow
endemic plant species were identified occupying the site. No clay soil inclusions were observed on the soil surface. No direct impacts to sensitive plant species would result.
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 Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project will permanently impact 0.042 acre of Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) jurisdiction including 0.018 acre of wetland, 0.09 acre of California Department of Fish
and Game (CDFG) jurisdiction, all of which supports riparian vegetation, and 0.09 acre of wetland within the California Coastal Zone. The project will temporarily impact 0.019 acre of ACOE jurisdiction, including 0.007 acre of wetlands, 0.05 acre of CDFG jurisdiction all of which is riparian, and 0.05 acre of wetland within the California
Coastal Zone. Direct permanent impacts to 0.14 acre of waters, including wetlands, under the jurisdiction of Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game, and within the California Coastal Zone are considered significant (Planning Systems 2011). Impacts to 0.14 acre of riparian scrub shall be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1, including creation at a minimum 1:1 ratio. A Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Nationwide Permit shall be
required from the ACOE for project impacts to 0.061 acre of ACOE-jurisdictional waters; and, a CDFG Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement shall be required from CDFG for impacts to 0.14 acre of jurisdictional waters
and riparian vegetation. Therefore, significant indirect impacts to jurisdictional areas and other sensitive vegetation communities would be reduced to less than significant levels through these measures. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project will permanently impact 0.042 acre including 0.019 acre of wetland and temporarily impact 0.019 of Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) jurisdiction as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. A Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Nationwide Permit shall be
required from the ACOE for project impacts to 0.061 acre of ACOE-jurisdictional waters. Therefore, significant indirect impacts to wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act would be reduced to less than significant levels through these measures.
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? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Carlsbad specifically identifies habitat linkages that would
accommodate movement of any native resident or migratory wildlife species as part of the Habitat Management
Plan (HMP), with Linkages consisting of conserved habitat that provides a connection between the HMP core areas and other natural habitat areas. The vicinity of the proposed project is not identified as a Linkage in the HMP and is
not located within a habitat corridor. A Biological Resources Technical Report (Planning Systems 2011) was prepared for the project. No sensitive animals were observed within or around the study area.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. The project would not conflict with the Carlsbad HMP, or any other local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The proposed project site is located within the City of Carlsbad HMP. The proposed project would comply with the HMP guidelines and requirements, and therefore, the project is consistent with the Carlsbad HMP. No impacts would result.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
14 Rev. 10/18/10
No Impact. The proposed project site is located within the City of Carlsbad HMP. The proposed project would comply with the HMP guidelines and requirements, and therefore, the project is consistent with the Carlsbad HMP.
No impacts would result.
Potentially
Significant Impact
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact 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?
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
No Impact. A Phase 1 Archeological Study was conducted for this widening project in 2012 (Brian Smith and
Associates). A site survey as well as a review of historic maps of the project vicinity in addition to a database search of the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historic Resources, California State Landmarks,
California Points of Historic Interest and other historic property lists was conducted and did not reveal any historic structures within the project vicinity. Therefore, no impacts to historical resources would result.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. According to the Phase 1 Archeological Study, seven sites have previously been recorded within a one quarter-mile radius of the project site. No additional
archeological resources were identified during the site reconnaissance survey. Since sites have been identified in the vicinity, the potential for additional sites exist. Accordingly, implementation of the recommended mitigation
measures described in the Phase 1 Archeological Study for the El Camino Real Widening Project at Robertson Ranch Carlsbad, CA (prepared by Planning Systems dated February 13, 2012) during project grading and
construction activities would reduce potential impacts to archeological resources to less than significant levels.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
No Impact. No previous paleontological resources have been recorded within the project site. Inspection of existing excavations along the west side of the El Camino Real right-of-way did not reveal any potential remains, and
impacts to paleontological resources would not be likely. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures during project grading and construction activities would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to less
than significant levels.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
15 Rev. 10/18/10
No Impact. No human remains are expected to be encountered given that nothing was unearthed with the original road cut. Additionally, implementation of the recommended mitigation measures as described in the Phase 1
Archeological Study for the El Camino Real Widening Project at Robertson Ranch Carlsbad, CA (prepared by Planning Systems dated February 13, 2012) during project grading and construction activities would reduce potential impacts to archeological resources to less than significant levels. As a result, no impacts are anticipated.
Potentially
Significant Impact
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact 1. 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 Section
1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
16 Rev. 10/18/10
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. Less Than Significant Impact. A Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report was prepared by Geosoils, Inc. in
2011. According to the report, the El Camino Real corridor is not located within any Earthquake Fault Zone delineated by the State of California for the hazard of fault surface rupture.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. Southern California, including the El Camino Real corridor is located in a
seismically active area. The closest known active fault to the project site is the Rose Canyon fault zone, which is located approximately 6 miles from the site. Other active faults in the area include Elsinore-Julian, Newport-Inglewood, Coronado Bank and Elsinore-Temecula fault zones, located approximately 23 miles, 6.5 miles, 22 miles,
and 23 miles from the project site respectively. The most significant seismic hazard at the site is considered to be shaking caused by an earthquake occurring on a nearby or distant active fault. The project does not propose to construct any structures, and the proposed widening of the existing roadway would not result in a significant impact such as risk of loss, injury or death due to seismic ground shaking. For these reasons, impacts related to seismic
ground shaking would be less than significant.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is generally known to occur in saturated cohesionless soils at depths shallower than approximately 50 feet. Dynamic settlement due to earthquake shaking can occur in both dry and
saturated sands. The project site includes alluvial soils, however, given the relatively limited extent of these liquefiable zones, planned fill thickness, and the anticipated remediation of alluvial soils, such as removal and recompaction, the potential for damaging deformations is considered low. As such, the project site is not considered
to be subject to liquefaction and impacts would be less than significant. iv) Landslides?
Less Than Significant Impact. The cut slopes along El Camino Real within the project area are grossly stable. A portion of the adjacent hillside cut is proposed to be graded and contoured to a 2:1 slope, and held in place with a
retaining wall. No landslides are anticipated.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project would include the improvement of the existing roadway’s pavement and would also include replacement/repair of existing storm drains to the west of
the roadway, including the use of rip rap to reduce erosive runoff velocities. In this way, beneficial impacts would
result.
As a result of grading and project construction, potential erosion and siltation impacts could occur. Standard BMPs will be employed during grading and construction, such as installation of sediment barriers and gravel/sand bags to prevent offsite sedimentation; dust abatement to minimize fugitive dust; and removal of soil tracked onto paved
surfaces. Potentially significant erosion impacts would be mitigated by implementation of such standard BMPs such
as planting an erosion retardant ground cover adhering to the following criteria:
The ground cover is effective in preventing surface erosion;
The ground cover is drought resistant;
The ground cover has a relatively low surface mass/weight;
Has a fairly deep and extensive root system;
Requires minimum maintenance by the owner; and
Has a low irrigation demand
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
17 Rev. 10/18/10
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? Less Than Significant Impact. The potential for ground deformation occurring beneath the project site is
considered low. In addition, the site is not located in an area of known ground subsidence due to the withdrawal of subsurface fluids. Therefore the potential for subsidence or collapse occurring at the site is considered remote, and impacts would be less than significant.
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? Less Than Significant Impact. Soils within the project area are generally represented by an R-value of 14. Based on review of GSI (2010), site soils have a generally low to high expansion potential classification, but should
typically be in the low to medium expansive range classification when subgrade materials are blended and/or reworked. Therefore, because potentially expansive soils would be replaced, potential impacts would be less than significant.
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?
No Impact. The project does not propose to provide septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impact would result.
Potentially
Significant Impact
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact 2. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS - Would the
project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project is a short term construction project that will not require significant levels of energy to function. The construction phase of the project will result in particulate emission from ground
disturbance as well as construction vehicles. These emissions are typically generated by construction and the transport of construction materials such as asphalt and concrete. Standard specifications for all road construction
contracts require that the contractor shall comply with all air pollution control, rules, regulations, ordinances and statutes which apply to any work performed pursuant to the contract. Once the road improvements are completed,
minimal resources are required to power street lights. Landscaping, including trees, will provide environmental cooling benefits. In addition, implementation of the road improvement itself will not result in long-term increase of
vehicular movement. The road improvements will however provide better flow for the existing and future increase in trips generated by other projects which may have a beneficial effect.
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
18 Rev. 10/18/10
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No Impact. The proposed road improvement does not conflict with plans to reduce greenhouse gases.
Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 3. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment?
e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
19 Rev. 10/18/10
Less than Significant Impact. Construction activities used for the proposed widening of El Camino Real would
not include the use of explosives or acutely hazardous materials. No hazardous materials would be used with the exception of fuels commonly employed in construction vehicles. As such, the project would have no significant impact with regard to creating a potential hazardous condition to the public or the environment through routine
transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. Impacts would be less than significant. 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? Less Than Significant Impact. Relatively small amounts of hazardous substances, such as fossil fuels, lubricants,
and solvents would be used onsite for construction and maintenance of the project; however, these materials shall be transported and handled in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws regulating the management and use of hazardous materials. Consequently, use of these materials for their intended purpose would not pose a significant
risk to the public or environment, and impacts would be less than significant.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is located within one-quarter mile of a proposed school.
However, relatively small amounts of hazardous substances, such as fossil fuels, lubricants, and solvents would be used onsite for construction and maintenance of the project. These materials shall be transported and handled in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws regulating the management and use of hazardous materials. Consequently, use of these materials for their intended purpose would not pose a significant risk to the public or
environment, and impacts would be less than significant. As such, no impact to existing or proposed schools would result.
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?
No Impact. According to the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health website (http://www.co.san-diego.ca.us/deh, accessed in January 2012), no waste, inventory, environmental assessment, or
tank information was identified for the project area. No listed sites would create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment, and no impact would occur.
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? No Impact. The proposed project is not located within the McClellan-Palomar Airport Traffic Pattern Zone 6 of the Land Use Compatibility Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport (SANDAG 2010). In addition, the proposed
project is not located within a two mile radius of any other airport. The McClellan-Palomar Airport is located approximately 2.0 miles south of the proposed project site. No safety hazard or impacts would result.
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? No Impact. The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and no impact would result.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The widening of El Camino Real would
alleviate existing and future traffic conditions along this roadway segment. However, during construction activities, the potential exists for increased traffic to occur within the project area which could result in delayed response times
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
20 Rev. 10/18/10
to emergency vehicles. Mitigation has been provided below to reduce this short-term impact to less than significant levels:
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. The proposed project is not located in areas adjacent to vegetated open space that could be susceptible
to wildland fires. Therefore, no impacts are considered.
Potentially
Significant Impact
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in
a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map?
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
21 Rev. 10/18/10
Potentially
Significant Impact
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact 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?
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) was prepared for the proposed project (O’Day Consultants , Inc. 2011), as required under the City’s local Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). The purpose of the SWMP is to document the process that
was used to select and design the site, source, and treatment control stormwater BMPs that would be incorporated in the project to mitigate the impacts of urban runoff during and after construction.
The SWMP identifies the project as “high priority” in the City’s SUSMP. Also, since the project meets one or more of the SUSMP applicability criteria, it is required to incorporate permanent stormwater BMPs into the project design. These BMPs include site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs.
The project site is located in the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit of the California Water Quality Control Board’s Region
9 – San Diego, within the Agua Hedionda Lagoon and Agua Hedionda Creek Hydrologic Areas. The Carlsbad Watershed Urban Runoff Management Program prepared by the California Water Quality Control Board’s Region 9 – San Diego, identified the following major water quality problems in the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit: fecal coliform or bacterial indicators and sedimentation and siltation. The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d)
list of impaired waterbodies included Agua Hedionda Creek for total dissolved solids, and Agua Hedionda Lagoon for bacteria indicators, and sedimentation/siltation.
The construction phase of the project is anticipated to generate sediment and construction material waste. Sedimentation can typically be caused through erosion of unprotected graded slopes and poor stockpile management. Construction material waste can pollute downstream water bodies, resources and aqueous
environments if not treated, handled and disposed of properly. Grading would increase the erosion potential of onsite soils which could lead to offsite sediment transport. Sediment, nutrients, heavy metals, organic compounds,
potential oxygen demanding substances, and oil and grease are the potential pollutants generally of concern for
roadway projects. This potential impact would be short-term (during the construction phase) and is considered significant. Mitigation in the form of site-specific BMPs, as recommended in the SWMP, will be implemented. The proposed mitigation measures will reduce water quality impacts to below a level of significance:
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)?
Less than Significant Impact. The widening of El Camino Real from two to three lanes would result in an increase to impervious surfaces along this roadway. No depletion in groundwater supplies would result, and the scale of the project is such that it would not substantially interfere with ground water recharge. Therefore, impacts to groundwater supplies would be less than significant.
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
22 Rev. 10/18/10
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? Less Than Significant Impact. Although the project would impact a storm drain outlet, as analyzed in Section
IV.a), the proposed project will not significantly alter drainage patterns on the site. Stormwater within the existing storm drains currently flows at erosive velocities into an outlet west of the roadway. The project proposes to replace and/or improve the existing storm drains within the project area and provide erosion protection in the outlet. This
proposed project feature would remedy the existing erosion condition. Impacts would be less than significant.
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? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not significantly alter drainage patterns on the site. The proposed project would replace and/or improve the existing storm drains within the project limits. The proposed project would result in a minor increase to surface runoff due to the proposed widening of El Camino Real, and this minor increase in surface runoff would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact. The widening of El Camino Real from two to three lanes would result in a minimal
increase in runoff, including polluted runoff. The existing storm drain system within the project limit is at capacity and therefore the project is proposing to replace and/or improve the existing storm drains within the project limits to accommodate project runoff. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Significant Impact. See responses to Hydrology and Water Quality a) through e) above.
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?
No Impact. The proposed project does not include the construction of any housing units. No impact is assessed.
h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact. The project does not propose the construction of any structures that would impede or redirect flood
flows. No impact is assessed.
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
No Impact. The project is not located within any inundation area and therefore would not expose people or
structures to a significant risk or loss of injury or death involving flooding. No impact assessed.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located northeast of Agua Hedionda Lagoon, 2.5 miles east of the Pacific Ocean, and 2 miles south of Buena Vista Lagoon. The proposed project is located approximately 80 feet
above mean see level. Due to the elevation and distance of the Pacific Ocean tsunamis are not considered a hazard at the project site. Due to the shallowness of the lagoons, and the position of the site being upslope from these water
bodies, potential impacts from a seiche or mudflow would not result. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
23 Rev. 10/18/10
Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact
No
Impact X. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The proposed project is located in the northern part of the City and would consist of widening an
existing southbound roadway from two to three lanes to accommodate existing and future traffic. The improvement of the existing road facility is consistent with the City’s General Plan. Since El Camino Real is an existing roadway,
the proposed widening of the roadway would not physically divide an established community, and no impact would result.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes to widen El Camino Real to its ultimate southbound width of
three travel lanes, which is consistent with its General Plan designation for prime arterial roadways. As such, no conflict with the General Plan would result, and since the project would provide ultimate Circulation Element
configuration improvements for this segment of El Camino Real, a land use policy benefit would result.
The project site is located within the Coastal Zone as part of the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP). The project would be consistent with the City General Plan and would not conflict with the LCP. For a discussion on sensitive
biological resources within the Coastal Zone, refer to Section IV, Biological Resources, responses a) and b).
The project is also subject to the City’s Hillside Development Regulations, per Chapter 21.95 of the City Municipal Code. The key purpose and intent of the regulations are to assure hillside conditions are properly identified and
incorporated into the planning process, and to preserve and/or enhance the aesthetic qualities of natural hillsides and manufactured slopes of the land, minimizing the amount of project grading, especially in highly visible public
places. The project is subject to a Hillside Development Permit due to its proposed grading and construction of a retaining wall along the western slope of a project segment. As described above under Aesthetics, the project is
subject to El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards and would not conflict with those standards given its incorporation of key features such as a boulderscape retaining wall, landscaping, and other improvements such as
sidewalks. These project features would also be consistent with the Hillside Development Regulations since they intend to improve the visual quality of the adjacent hillsides and street corridor.
Overall, the project would be consistent with applicable plans, and impacts would be less than significant.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
24 Rev. 10/18/10
Less Than Significant Impact. As stated in Section IV, Biological Resources item f), the proposed project site is located within the City of Carlsbad’s HMP. The proposed project would comply with the HMP guidelines and
requirements, and will therefore be consistent with the Carlsbad’s HMP. Impacts would be less than significant.
Potentially
Significant Impact
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact XI. 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?
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?
No Impact. According to the California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology’s (CDMG) Generalized Mineral Land Classification Map of Western San Diego County, California, the proposed project site
and its surrounding areas are classified as Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ)-3 (CDMG 1996). MRZ-3 is defined as areas containing mineral deposits the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data (CDMG 1996).
Also, the City’s General Plan does not identify mineral resources within its jurisdictional area. Overall, no impacts to mineral resources would occur.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
No Impact. As stated above in response a), the project site is not located in an area designated for possessing locally important minerals. The project site is located in a semi-developed area and consists of widening an existing
roadway, with no impacts to any known mineral resource recovery sites. No mineral impacts would result as a result of implementing the proposed project.
Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact
No
Impact XII. 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?
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
25 Rev. 10/18/10
Potentially
Significant Impact
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact 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?
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? Less Than Significant Impact. The City’s General Plan has designated 60 dBA community noise equivalency
level (CNEL) as the maximum acceptable exterior noise level for new residential, schools and churches. In addition, interior noise levels for new residential development should not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. The City has not
adopted specific road widening significance thresholds for existing noise sensitive land uses. Existing noise levels along the roadway will remain the same and will increase incrementally as the traffic volumes increase. The project
will not generate additional traffic and will therefore not generate an increase in community noise levels.
Short term noise levels generated by construction equipment would vary greatly depending on factors such as the type and specific model of the equipment, the operation being performed and the condition of the equipment. The
maximum noise levels would range from approximately 75 to 95 dBA for the equipment normally used for this type of project. Construction activities are expected to comply with the City’s preferred hours of operation -- for prime
arterials, the City’s standard policy weekday construction hours are 8:30 a m. to 3:30 p.m. Since this segment of El Camino Real has substantial directional flow, the City may pursue an extension of construction hours until 5:00 p.m.
in the afternoon. The extension of hours would require use of a traffic control plan. Because the Tamarack Avenue and Cannon Road intersections have school pedestrians crossing El Camino Real, the contractor would not be
allowed to initiate the traffic control plan in either direction before 8:30 a.m. Furthermore, the City may elect to allow construction on Saturdays, in an effort to reduce the overall duration of construction. Overall, regardless of
which construction scenario the City ultimately pursues, construction activities would comply with the City’s permitted hours for construction activities, and would be short-term, and therefore the construction noise impact
would be less than significant.
As the City develops, the number of traffic trips along El Camino Real will increase with or without the proposed road widening improvements. Therefore, long-term noise increase impacts would be less than significant, since the
noise associated with increased traffic is not generated by the proposed project.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels?
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
26 Rev. 10/18/10
Less Than Significant Impact. During the construction phase of the project, the generation of groundbourne vibration or intermittently high noise levels may occur. However, these activities would occur during the permitted
hours of construction activities in compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance and therefore impacts would be less than significant.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? Less Than Significant Impact. As the City develops, the number of traffic trips along El Camino Real will increase with or without the proposed road widening improvements. Therefore, long-term noise increase impacts would be less than significant, since the noise associated with increased traffic is not generated by the proposed
project. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact. As the City develops, the number of traffic trips along El Camino Real will increase with or without the proposed road widening improvements. Therefore, long-term noise increase impacts
would be less than significant, since the noise associated with increased traffic is not generated by the proposed 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?
No Impact. The proposed project is located approximately 1.75 miles from McClellan Palomar Airport. However the project will only create short term construction noise impacts that will not be audible at the airport.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Accordingly, no impact would result.
Potentially
Significant Impact
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact XIII. 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?
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
27 Rev. 10/18/10
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)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The widening of El Camino Real to the proposed configuration of this segment of roadway would accommodate planned development consistent with the City’s General Plan. The widening of this
existing roadway from two to three lanes would not induce substantial unplanned growth in the area, and would not change any allowed density and/or zoning on adjacent properties. Impacts would be less than significant.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. No displacement of existing housing would result. Also, no change to allowed density or zoning would result. Therefore, no impact would result.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. Refer to response b) above. No people would be displaced as a result of implementing the proposed
project. No impact assessed.
Potentially
Significant Impact
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a
need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
a) 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?
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
28 Rev. 10/18/10
Less Than Significant Impact. The nearest fire protection station, Fire Station 3, is located northeast of the project site at 3701 Catalina Drive. The widening of El Camino Real would contribute to an alleviation of the existing
traffic congestion along the roadway and allow better access for public emergency services and improve their response times. The demand for fire services in the area is not expected to increase as a result of implementing the proposed project. Temporary construction phase impacts may result during project construction, and as identified in
HAZ-1 mitigation measure provided in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section, response g), the Traffic Control Plan would ensure that emergency response services would be provided with information concerning the closures and the applicable contact information to reach the onsite construction manager. This would allow prior
notification to ensure that access through the construction area is possible upon arrival of an emergency vehicle. Therefore, temporary impacts during the construction phase would be reduced to less than significant. No long-term operational phase impacts are assessed.
ii) Police Protection? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Carlsbad maintains one police station at 2560 Orion Way. The station is located approximately 1.0 mile southeast of the proposed project site. The demand of police protection services is not anticipated to increase with implementation of the proposed project, and no impacts were assessed for the long-term operational phase of the proposed project. As described in response i) above, the Traffic Control Plan
provided in Hazards and Hazardous Materials section, response g), would ensure that temporary impacts would be reduced to less than significant.
Since emergency response services would be provided with information concerning any potential road closures and the applicable contract information of the onsite construction manager to ensure prior notification of access, temporary impacts would be less than significant.
iii) Schools? No Impact. The proposed project would not affect existing or proposed schools within the area, since no housing is
proposed, and no increase in students would result. No impact assessed. iv) Parks?
No Impact. The proposed project would not result in the increased use of existing parks, since no population would be introduced as a result of the project. No impact assessed.
v) Other public facilities? No Impact. No additional public facilities, such as public libraries, would be impacted as a result of the proposed widening of El Camino Real. No impact assessed.
Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact
No
Impact XV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
29 Rev. 10/18/10
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. The proposed widening of El Camino Real and its project components would not result in the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. No impact is assessed. b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities,
which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The proposed project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities. It should also be noted that the City’s General Plan does not propose any recreational facilities within the project area. No impact assessed.
Potentially
Significant Impact
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into
account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management
program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other
standards 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) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system?
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
30 Rev. 10/18/10
No Impact. Southbound El Camino Real, between Kelly Drive and Crestview Drive, currently consists predominantly of two southbound traffic lanes. The City of Carlsbad’s General Plan has designated this road as a
prime arterial roadway. Various developments in the project vicinity have resulted in requirements of developers to widen El Camino Real to its full prime arterial standards. The proposed project area is one of the few remaining sections of El Camino Real that has not been widened to its ultimate width of three southbound lanes and three
northbound lanes. The proposed project consists of widening the remaining sections of El Camino Real, from Kelly Drive to Crestview Drive, to its ultimate width of three lanes. The widening of this roadway will help to distribute existing and future traffic through this section of El Camino Real. The project consists of road widening
improvements and therefore does not generate traffic.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? No Impact. SANDAG, acting as the County Congestion Management Agency, has designated three roads (Rancho
Santa Fe Road, El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad are:
*The numbers are in thousands of daily trips.
The Congestion Management Program’s (CMP) acceptable LOS standard is E, or LOS F if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS F in 1990). Accordingly, all designated roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS. The widening of this roadway will help to
distribute existing and future traffic through this section of El Camino Real. The project consists of road widening improvements and therefore does not generate traffic.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components, and no part of the proposed roadway improvements would conflict with the Land Use Compatibility Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. It would not result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks, and no impacts would result. The
widening of this roadway will help to distribute existing and future traffic through this section of El Camino Real.
The project consists of road widening improvements and therefore does not impact air traffic patterns.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? No Impact. All project circulation improvements would be designed and constructed to City standards and no
feature of the project would result in a design hazard. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s General
Plan and would not result in any incompatible land uses. Overall, no impacts would result.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. During the construction phase lane closures
along El Camino Real (within the project boundary) could occur, which could result in inadequate emergency response times. However, with implementation of a Traffic Control Plan, potential impacts would be reduced to less
than significant levels.
Existing ADT* LOS Buildout ADT* Rancho Santa Fe Road 17-35 “A-D” 35-56
El Camino Real 27-49 “A-C” 33-62 Palomar Airport Road 10-57 “A-D” 30-73
SR 78 124-142 “F” 156-180 I-5 199-216 “D” 260-272
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
31 Rev. 10/18/10
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)?
Less Than Significant Impact. Improvement plans include bus stop locations as designated by North County Transit District. No bicycle racks or other alternative transportation is provided along this portion of El Camino
Real. The widening of this roadway segment involves the reconstruction of those bicycle lanes that exist. During construction of the proposed project, access to bicycle lanes would be redirected. Therefore the redirected bicycle route would be short term. For these reasons, the project would not conflict with alternative transportation programs
and impacts would be less than significant.
Potentially
Significant Impact
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
No Impact. Project implementation would not impact wastewater treatment services of the applicable wastewater service provider, since the project involves a roadway widening project with no alteration to vicinity wastewater
services. No impact would result.
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
32 Rev. 10/18/10
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?
No Impact. The proposed project would not result in the construction of a new water or wastewater treatment facility, and would not entail the expansion of existing facilities, since water and wastewater systems are not
proposed to be altered. Therefore, no impacts would result. 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? Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. According to the Preliminary Stormwater
Management Plan for El Camino Real Widening, the majority of the existing storm drain systems within the project limits are at capacity. As identified in the project description, the project proposes to replace or improve the existing storm drains within the project area and provide erosion protection. These improvements have the potential
to result in significant effects to biological resources as analyzed in that section, since waters and wetlands would be significantly affected. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources,
or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would require minimal new water supplies to serve the irrigation needs of the project. Also, the project does not meet the requirements of a “regionally significant project” per Senate Bill (SB) 610 as it would not require expanded use of water supplies. Therefore, the project is not subject to enhanced CEQA requirements per SB 610. Impacts would be less than significant.
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? No Impact. The City owns and maintains sewage pipelines, pump stations and other facilities used to convey
wastewater for treatment. Within the City, the wastewater system is comprised of major trunk lines, smaller collector lines, and lift stations. Wastewater treatment services are provided by the Encina Wastewater Authority (EWA). Project implementation would not impact wastewater treatment, since no demand would result with
implementation of the road widening project. No impact would result.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs? Less Than Significant Impact. Solid waste disposal is provided by Waste Management, Inc., which operates under
a franchise agreement with the City. The project would generate a limited amount of solid waste during
construction. It is anticipated that the solid waste generated by project construction would not be substantial or interfere with the permitted capacity of nearby landfills and therefore would have a less than significant impact on
local solid waste facilities. No regular solid waste disposal is proposed as part of project operations. Impacts would be less than significant.
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact. All solid waste would be disposed of in an approved site in compliance with federal, state and County
regulations. No impacts would result.
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
33 Rev. 10/18/10
Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact
No
Impact XVIII. 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) 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?
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Based on evaluation and discussions contained in this Initial Study and MND, the proposed project has limited potential to degrade the quality of the environment.
The proposed project would not significantly affect the environment with the recommended mitigation measures incorporated into the project, particularly for the topics of biological resources and cultural resources as analyzed
herein.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Mitigation measures are provided to reduce the
project’s significant impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, hazard and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality. With the incorporation of the project mitigation measures identified in this
MND, project-level impacts to the environment would be reduced to less than significant levels, and impacts would not be cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of reasonably foreseeable projects.
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
34 Rev. 10/18/10
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact. No feature of the proposed project would result in substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Impacts would be less than significant.
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.
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
35 Rev. 10/18/10
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 Division 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 Division. March 1994.
2. Carlsbad General Plan, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, dated March 1994. 3. City of Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 21 Zoning, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, as updated.
4. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, final approval dated November 2004.
5. Phase 1 Archeological Study for the El Camino Real Widening Project at Robertson Ranch Carlsbad, CA Brian F. Smith and Associates February 13, 2012
6. Agency jurisdiction assessment letter, Glen Lukos Associates May 17, 2011
7. Biology Resource Technical Report, Planning Systems May 5, 2011 8. Geothechnical Investigation for the Planned Improvement of El Camino Real between Cannon Road and
Tamarack Avenue, Geosoils, Inc. May 11, 2011
9. Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan for El Camino Real Widening Rancho Costera, O’Day Consultants, Inc. August 19, 2011
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
36 Rev. 10/18/10
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
Mitigation Measures for Sensitive Vegetation Communities BIO-1: Prior to grading, significant direct impacts to sensitive vegetation communities shall be mitigated in the
amounts shown in the discussion below. Mitigation shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Division.
The loss of 0.04 acre of Mulefat scrub and 0.10 acre of Southern willow scrub within the Coastal Zone
shall be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1 which must include a 1:1 creation component.
Mitigation Measures for Jurisdictional Waters
BIO-2 Prior to grading, significant direct impacts to jurisdictional waters and riparian habitats shall be mitigated to the satisfaction of the City Planning Division. The following mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a level
below significance:
Mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional waters and riparian habitats shall include 1:1 creation in accordance
with the “no net loss” wetlands policy in the Carlsbad HMP. Impacts to 0.14 acre of riparian scrub shall be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1, including creation at a minimum 1:1 ratio.
A Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Nationwide Permit shall be required from the ACOE for project impacts to 0.061 acre of ACOE-jurisdictional waters.
A CDFG Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement shall be required from CDFG for impacts to 0.095
acre of jurisdictional waters and riparian vegetation.
Mitigation Measures for Cultural Resources
CULT-1: Archeological monitoring as described in the Phase 1 Archeological Study for the El Camino Real Widening Project at Robertson Ranch Carlsbad, CA. shall occur during all earthmoving activities. If resources are
unearthed, then a data recovery program consistent with City of Carlsbad Cultural Resource Guidelines (December 1990) shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
Mitigation Measures for Geology and Soils GEO-1: Prior to grading, the project geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist shall prepare a Final
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report reflecting the approved project configuration. This geotechnical study shall, as deemed necessary by the City Engineer and consulting geotechnical engineer, further assess slope
stability and slope stability remediation within the proposed widening footprint. The findings and recommendations of the geotechnical assessment shall be incorporated into the final engineering design for the project.
GEO-2: All proposed cut and fill slopes identified as susceptible to future erosion and/or soil slippage shall be planted with an erosion retardant ground cover adhering to the following criteria:
The ground cover is effective in preventing surface erosion;
The ground cover is drought resistant;
The ground cover has a relatively low surface mass/weight;
Has a fairly deep and extensive root system;
Requires minimum maintenance by the owner; and
Has a low irrigation demand.
Mitigation Measures for Hazards and Hazardous Materials HAZ-1: Prior to grading, a traffic control plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City of Carlsbad Transportation Division. The traffic control plan shall show all signage, striping, delineation detours, flagging
operations, and any other devices, which shall be used during construction to guide motorists safely through the construction zone and allow for a minimum of one lane of travel. The plan shall also identify temporary
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
37 Rev. 10/18/10
construction employee parking areas. The traffic control plan shall also include provisions for coordinating with local emergency service providers regarding construction times and locations of lane closures as well as
specifications for pedestrian and bicycle safety. Emergency vehicles would be permitted access through the construction zone.
Mitigation Measures for Hydrology and Water Quality HYDRO-1: A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared prior to grading. The SWPPP shall
identify potential sources of pollution, practices to be used to reduce pollutants, and shall help ensure compliance with the stormwater permit. The construction contractor shall be required to implement the approved SWPPP and
any amendments thereafter, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The SWPPP will have a Sampling and Monitoring Program that addresses both direct discharges from the project into a Section 303(d) water body and
discharges that have been discovered through visual monitoring to be potentially contaminated by pollutants not visually detectable in the runoff.
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MmGA TING MEASURES AND CONCUR
WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT .
.5, -.2.2. _,,__
Date Signature
Rev. 10/18/10
Page 1 of 2
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure.
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated.
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated.
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information.
RD - Appendix P.
PROJECT NAME: El Camino Real Southbound Widening FILE NUMBERS: CDP 11-10/HDP 11-02/SUP 11-02/HMP 11-04
APPROVAL DATE: May 22, 2012
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
Prior to issuance of a grading permit a mitigation plan shall be approved by the City Planner. The loss of 0.04 acre of Mulefat
scrub and 0.10 acre of Southern willow scrub within the Coastal Zone shall be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1 which must include a 1:1
creation component.
Project Planning
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a mitigation plan shall be approved by the City Planner. Mitigation for impacts to
jurisdictional waters and riparian habitats shall include 1:1 creation in accordance with the “no net loss” wetlands policy in the Carlsbad HMP. Impacts to 0.14 acre of riparian scrub shall
be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1, including creation at a minimum 1:1 ratio.
Project Planning
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a Clean Water Act
(CWA) Section 404 Nationwide Permit shall be required from the ACOE for project impacts to 0.061 acre of ACOE-jurisdictional
waters.
Project ACOE/Planning
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a CDFG Section 1602
Streambed Alteration Agreement shall be required from CDFG for impacts to 0.095 acre of jurisdictional waters and riparian
vegetation.
Project CDFG/Planning
Archeological monitoring shall occur during all earthmoving activities, as described in the Environmental Assessment Part II
to the satisfaction of the City of Carlsbad Planning Division.
Project Planning
Page 2 of 2
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure.
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated.
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated.
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information.
RD - Appendix P.
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Type
Monitoring
Department
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
Prior to grading, the project geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist shall prepare a Final Geotechnical
Engineering Investigation Report reflecting the approved project configuration. This geotechnical study shall, as deemed
necessary by the City Engineer and consulting geotechnical engineer, further assess slope stability and slope stability
remediation within the proposed widening footprint. The findings and recommendations of the geotechnical assessment shall be
incorporated into the final engineering design for the project.
Project Land Development
Engineering
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a landscape plans shall be
approved by the City Planner. All proposed cut and fill slopes identified as susceptible to future erosion and/or soil slippage
shall be planted with an erosion retardant ground cover adhering to the following criteria:
1) The ground cover is effective in preventing surface erosion; 2)The ground cover is drought resistant; 3) The ground cover
has a relatively low surface mass/weight; 4) Has a fairly deep and extensive root system; 5) Requires minimum maintenance
by the owner; and 6) Has a low irrigation demand
Project Planning
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a traffic control plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer consistent
with the Environmental Assessment Part II.
Project Land Development
Engineering
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a stormwater pollution
prevention plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Project Land
Development Engineering
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
11 Rev. 10/18/10
management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set
forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California
Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following:
Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area?
Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan?
The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan and will in no
way conflict with 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 2006 through December 2010, indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (a total of 1 day 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 along the improved El Camino Real
southbound lanes will be consistent with the RAQS and TCMs since the project will not generate additional ADT above what has already been programmed, rather the project will eliminate segments of narrow roadway allowing the existing and future traffic to flow more freely.
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 short term emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the proposed project would be minimal since they are short term. 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 15064(h)(3), the proposed project’s
incremental contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable. 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.
In addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the vicinity of the project. No impact is assessed.
e) No Impact. The construction of the proposed project could generate fumes from the operation of construction equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would be short-term or transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not considered substantial.
Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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?
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
16 Rev. 10/18/10
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. Less Than Significant Impact. A Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report was prepared by Geosoils, Inc. in
2011. According to the report, the El Camino Real corridor is not located within any Earthquake Fault Zone
delineated by the State of California for the hazard of fault surface rupture.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. Southern California, including the El Camino Real corridor is located in a
seismically active area. The closest known active fault to the project site is the Rose Canyon fault zone, which is
located approximately 6 miles from the site. Other active faults in the area include Elsinore-Julian, Newport-Inglewood, Coronado Bank and Elsinore-Temecula fault zones, located approximately 23 miles, 6.5 miles, 22 miles,
and 23 miles from the project site respectively. The most significant seismic hazard at the site is considered to be shaking caused by an earthquake occurring on a nearby or distant active fault. The project does not propose to
construct any structures, and the proposed widening of the existing roadway would not result in a significant impact such as risk of loss, injury or death due to seismic ground shaking. For these reasons, impacts related to seismic
ground shaking would be less than significant.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is generally known to occur in saturated cohesionless soils at depths shallower than approximately 50 feet. Dynamic settlement due to earthquake shaking can occur in both dry and
saturated sands. The project site includes alluvial soils, however, given the relatively limited extent of these liquefiable zones, planned fill thickness, and the anticipated remediation of alluvial soils, such as removal and
recompaction, the potential for damaging deformations is considered low. As such, the project site is not considered to be subject to liquefaction and impacts would be less than significant.
iv) Landslides?
Less Than Significant Impact. The cut slopes along El Camino Real within the project area are grossly stable. A
portion of the adjacent hillside cut is proposed to be graded and contoured to a 2:1 slope, and held in place with a retaining wall. No landslides are anticipated.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project would include the improvement of
the existing roadway’s pavement and would also include replacement/repair of existing storm drains to the west of the roadway, including the use of rip rap to reduce erosive runoff velocities. In this way, beneficial impacts would
result.
As a result of grading and project construction, potential erosion and siltation impacts could occur. Standard BMPs will be employed during grading and construction, such as installation of sediment barriers and gravel/sand bags to
prevent offsite sedimentation; dust abatement to minimize fugitive dust; and removal of soil tracked onto paved surfaces. Potentially significant erosion impacts would be mitigated by implementation of such standard BMPs such
as planting an erosion retardant ground cover adhering to the following criteria:
The ground cover is effective in preventing surface erosion;
The ground cover is drought resistant;
The ground cover has a relatively low surface mass/weight;
Has a fairly deep and extensive root system;
Requires minimum maintenance by the owner; and
Has a low irrigation demand
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
36 Rev. 10/18/10
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
Mitigation Measures for Sensitive Vegetation Communities BIO-1: Prior to grading, significant direct impacts to sensitive vegetation communities shall be mitigated in the
amounts shown in the discussion below. Mitigation shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning
Division.
The loss of 0.04 acre of Mulefat scrub and 0.10 acre of Southern willow scrub within the Coastal Zone
shall be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1 which must include a 1:1 creation component.
Mitigation Measures for Jurisdictional Waters
BIO-2 Prior to grading, significant direct impacts to jurisdictional waters and riparian habitats shall be mitigated to the satisfaction of the City Planning Division. The following mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a level
below significance:
Mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional waters and riparian habitats shall include 1:1 creation in accordance
with the “no net loss” wetlands policy in the Carlsbad HMP. Impacts to 0.14 acre of riparian scrub shall be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1, including creation at a minimum 1:1 ratio.
A Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Nationwide Permit shall be required from the ACOE for project impacts to 0.061 acre of ACOE-jurisdictional waters.
A CDFG Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement shall be required from CDFG for impacts to 0.095
acre of jurisdictional waters and riparian vegetation.
Mitigation Measures for Cultural Resources
CULT-1: Archeological monitoring as described in the Phase 1 Archeological Study for the El Camino Real Widening Project at Robertson Ranch Carlsbad, CA. shall occur during all earthmoving activities. If resources are
unearthed, then a data recovery program consistent with City of Carlsbad Cultural Resource Guidelines (December 1990) shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
Mitigation Measures for Geology and Soils GEO-1: Prior to grading, the project geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist shall prepare a Final
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report reflecting the approved project configuration. This geotechnical study shall, as deemed necessary by the City Engineer and consulting geotechnical engineer, further assess slope
stability and slope stability remediation within the proposed widening footprint. The findings and recommendations of the geotechnical assessment shall be incorporated into the final engineering design for the project.
GEO-2: All proposed cut and fill slopes identified as susceptible to future erosion and/or soil slippage shall be planted with an erosion retardant ground cover adhering to the following criteria:
The ground cover is effective in preventing surface erosion;
The ground cover is drought resistant;
The ground cover has a relatively low surface mass/weight;
Has a fairly deep and extensive root system;
Requires minimum maintenance by the owner; and
Has a low irrigation demand.
Mitigation Measures for Hazards and Hazardous Materials HAZ-1: Prior to grading, a traffic control plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City of Carlsbad Transportation Division. The traffic control plan shall show all signage, striping, delineation detours, flagging
operations, and any other devices, which shall be used during construction to guide motorists safely through the construction zone and allow for a minimum of one lane of travel. The plan shall also identify temporary
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
11 Rev. 10/18/10
management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set
forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California
Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following:
Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area?
Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan?
The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan and will in no
way conflict with 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 2006 through December 2010, indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (a total of 1 day 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 along the improved El Camino Real
southbound lanes will be consistent with the RAQS and TCMs since the project will not generate additional ADT above what has already been programmed, rather the project will eliminate segments of narrow roadway allowing the existing and future traffic to flow more freely.
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 short term emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the proposed project would be minimal since they are short term. 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 15064(h)(3), the proposed project’s
incremental contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable. 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.
In addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the vicinity of the project. No impact is assessed.
e) No Impact. The construction of the proposed project could generate fumes from the operation of construction equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would be short-term or transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not considered substantial.
Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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?
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
16 Rev. 10/18/10
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. Less Than Significant Impact. A Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report was prepared by Geosoils, Inc. in
2011. According to the report, the El Camino Real corridor is not located within any Earthquake Fault Zone
delineated by the State of California for the hazard of fault surface rupture.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. Southern California, including the El Camino Real corridor is located in a
seismically active area. The closest known active fault to the project site is the Rose Canyon fault zone, which is
located approximately 6 miles from the site. Other active faults in the area include Elsinore-Julian, Newport-Inglewood, Coronado Bank and Elsinore-Temecula fault zones, located approximately 23 miles, 6.5 miles, 22 miles,
and 23 miles from the project site respectively. The most significant seismic hazard at the site is considered to be shaking caused by an earthquake occurring on a nearby or distant active fault. The project does not propose to
construct any structures, and the proposed widening of the existing roadway would not result in a significant impact such as risk of loss, injury or death due to seismic ground shaking. For these reasons, impacts related to seismic
ground shaking would be less than significant.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is generally known to occur in saturated cohesionless soils at depths shallower than approximately 50 feet. Dynamic settlement due to earthquake shaking can occur in both dry and
saturated sands. The project site includes alluvial soils, however, given the relatively limited extent of these liquefiable zones, planned fill thickness, and the anticipated remediation of alluvial soils, such as removal and
recompaction, the potential for damaging deformations is considered low. As such, the project site is not considered to be subject to liquefaction and impacts would be less than significant.
iv) Landslides?
Less Than Significant Impact. The cut slopes along El Camino Real within the project area are grossly stable. A
portion of the adjacent hillside cut is proposed to be graded and contoured to a 2:1 slope, and held in place with a retaining wall. No landslides are anticipated.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project would include the improvement of
the existing roadway’s pavement and would also include replacement/repair of existing storm drains to the west of the roadway, including the use of rip rap to reduce erosive runoff velocities. In this way, beneficial impacts would
result.
As a result of grading and project construction, potential erosion and siltation impacts could occur. Standard BMPs will be employed during grading and construction, such as installation of sediment barriers and gravel/sand bags to
prevent offsite sedimentation; dust abatement to minimize fugitive dust; and removal of soil tracked onto paved surfaces. Potentially significant erosion impacts would be mitigated by implementation of such standard BMPs such
as planting an erosion retardant ground cover adhering to the following criteria:
The ground cover is effective in preventing surface erosion;
The ground cover is drought resistant;
The ground cover has a relatively low surface mass/weight;
Has a fairly deep and extensive root system;
Requires minimum maintenance by the owner; and
Has a low irrigation demand
CDP 11-10
El Camino Real Southbound Widening
36 Rev. 10/18/10
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
Mitigation Measures for Sensitive Vegetation Communities BIO-1: Prior to grading, significant direct impacts to sensitive vegetation communities shall be mitigated in the
amounts shown in the discussion below. Mitigation shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning
Division.
The loss of 0.04 acre of Mulefat scrub and 0.10 acre of Southern willow scrub within the Coastal Zone
shall be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1 which must include a 1:1 creation component.
Mitigation Measures for Jurisdictional Waters
BIO-2 Prior to grading, significant direct impacts to jurisdictional waters and riparian habitats shall be mitigated to the satisfaction of the City Planning Division. The following mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a level
below significance:
Mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional waters and riparian habitats shall include 1:1 creation in accordance
with the “no net loss” wetlands policy in the Carlsbad HMP. Impacts to 0.14 acre of riparian scrub shall be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1, including creation at a minimum 1:1 ratio.
A Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Nationwide Permit shall be required from the ACOE for project impacts to 0.061 acre of ACOE-jurisdictional waters.
A CDFG Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement shall be required from CDFG for impacts to 0.095
acre of jurisdictional waters and riparian vegetation.
Mitigation Measures for Cultural Resources
CULT-1: Archeological monitoring as described in the Phase 1 Archeological Study for the El Camino Real Widening Project at Robertson Ranch Carlsbad, CA. shall occur during all earthmoving activities. If resources are
unearthed, then a data recovery program consistent with City of Carlsbad Cultural Resource Guidelines (December 1990) shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
Mitigation Measures for Geology and Soils GEO-1: Prior to grading, the project geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist shall prepare a Final
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report reflecting the approved project configuration. This geotechnical study shall, as deemed necessary by the City Engineer and consulting geotechnical engineer, further assess slope
stability and slope stability remediation within the proposed widening footprint. The findings and recommendations of the geotechnical assessment shall be incorporated into the final engineering design for the project.
GEO-2: All proposed cut and fill slopes identified as susceptible to future erosion and/or soil slippage shall be planted with an erosion retardant ground cover adhering to the following criteria:
The ground cover is effective in preventing surface erosion;
The ground cover is drought resistant;
The ground cover has a relatively low surface mass/weight;
Has a fairly deep and extensive root system;
Requires minimum maintenance by the owner; and
Has a low irrigation demand.
Mitigation Measures for Hazards and Hazardous Materials HAZ-1: Prior to grading, a traffic control plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City of Carlsbad Transportation Division. The traffic control plan shall show all signage, striping, delineation detours, flagging
operations, and any other devices, which shall be used during construction to guide motorists safely through the construction zone and allow for a minimum of one lane of travel. The plan shall also identify temporary