Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-06-19; Planning Commission; Resolution 6985 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, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND ADDENDUM TO ALLOW FOR THE DEMOLITION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, STORAGE BUILDING, AND GREEN HOUSE STRUCTURES, AND TO SUBDIVIDE AND GRADE A 5.4 ACRE SITE INTO SEVENTEEN (17) SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, ONE PRIVATE STREET LOT, AND TWO BIO-RETENTION BASIN LOTS, ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF PIO PICO DRIVE NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF PIO PICO DRIVE AND LAS FLORES DRIVE WITHIN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: MILES PACIFIC SUBDIVISION CASE NO.: CT 12-01/PUD 12-08/CDP 12-15 WHEREAS, Miles Pacific, LP, “Owner/Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as A Portion of Tract 7 of Laguna Mesa Tract, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, According to Map Thereof No. 1719, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, June 20, 1921 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum were prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on June 19, 2013, 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6985 PC RESO NO. 6985 -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 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum, Exhibit “MND,” 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 and Addendum for Miles Pacific Subdivision – CT 12-01/PUD 12-08/CDP 12-15, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to ADOPTING the project; and b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum 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. Conditions: 1. Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of the Miles Pacific Subdivision (CT 12-02/PUD12-08/CDP 12-15) Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. NOTICE TO APPLICANT An appeal of this decision to the City Council must be filed with the City Clerk at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Planning Commission’s decision. Pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.54, section 21.54.150, the appeal must be in writing and state the reason(s) for the appeal. The City Council must make a determination on the appeal prior to any judicial review. 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 June 19, 2013, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Siekmann, Commissioners Black and Segall NOES: Commissioner L'Heureux ABSENT: Commissioners Anderson, Schumacher and Scully ABSTAIN: ·~ K s.~,....A> :KERRY:smKMANN, cbail1)efSBil CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: DONNEU City Planner PC RESO NO. 6985 -3- Planning Division 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-602-4600 760-602-8559 fax www.carlsbadca.gov NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: Miles Pacific Subdivision CASE NO: CT 12-01/CDP 12-15/PUD 12-06 PROJECT LOCATION: Generally located on the west side of Pio Pico Drive near the intersection of Pio Pico Drive and Las Flores Drive. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of a Tentative Tract Map (CT), Coastal Development Permit (CDP), and Planned Development Permit (PUD) to allow for the demolition of a single family residence, storage building, and green house structures and to subdivide and grade a 5.4-acre parcel into seventeen (17) minimum 7,500 square foot single-family residential lots, one private street lot, and two bio-retention basin lots. Single-family residences including architecture are not proposed for development at this time. 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) 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 Negative 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 proposed project and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Greg Fisher in the Planning Division at (760) 602-4629. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD March 14, 2013 – April 15, 2013 PUBLISH DATE March 14, 2013 4i(f~.A CITY 0 F ~CARLSBAD Community & Economic Development www.carlsbadca.gov CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Miles Pacific Subdivision CT 12-01/PUD 12-08/CDP 12-15 Generally located on the west side of Pio Pico Drive near the intersection of Pio Pico Drive and Las Flores Drive. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of a Tentative Tract Map (CT), Planned Development Permit (PUD), and Coastal Development Permit (COP) to allow for the demolition of a single family residence, storage building, and green house structures, and to subdivide and grade a 5.4-acre parcel site into seventeen (17) single-family residential lots, one private street lot, and two bio-retention basin lots. Single-family residences including architecture are not proposed for development at this time. 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: [g] 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. D The proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. (Mitigated Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). 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: DON NEU City Planner June 19, 2013, pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 6985 · · · . Planning Division ~~-----~--------------------------------------------------------------c 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ® ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM – INITIAL STUDY (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION) CASE NO: CT 12-01/CDP 12-15/PUD 12-06 DATE: February 12, 2013 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Miles Pacific Subdivision 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Greg Fisher (760) 602-4629 4. PROJECT LOCATION: Generally located on the west side of Pio Pico Drive near the intersection of Pio Pico Drive and Las Flores Drive within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program and Local Facilities Management Zone 1 5. PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: BHA, Inc., Ronald Holloway, 5115 Avenida Encinas, Suite L, Carlsbad, CA 92008-4387 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RLM - Residential Low-Medium Density (0 – 4 du/ac) 7. ZONING: R-1 (One-Family Residential) 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): None 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The Miles Pacific Subdivision project is located on a 5.4-acre infill site in the northwest quadrant of the City of Carlsbad, situated on the west side of Pio Pico Drive near the intersection of Pio Pico Drive and Las Flores Drive. The project includes the demolition of a single-family house, storage building, and green house buildings, and the proposal to subdivide and re-grade the site into 17 minimum 7,500 square foot single-family residential lots, one private street lot, and two bio-detention basin lots. Residential dwelling units including architecture and plotting are not proposed with this project. The proposed project applications include a Tentative Tract Map (CT 12-01), Coastal Development Permit (CDP 12-15), and Planned Development Permit (PUD 12-06), to allow for the demolition of the existing structures and to subdivide and grade the project site. The subject site is zoned R-1 which will implement the RLM General Plan Land Use and LCP RLM Land Use designations. The project proposes to develop 17 minimum 7,500 square foot single-family lots consistent with both the RLM and R-1 designations. Although not proposed at this time, a future Coastal Development Permit Amendment will allow for the development of single-family residences on the lots, and are compatible with the existing single-family residences located on the surrounding properties. The site is surrounded by existing single family homes on the north, south and east sides of the property, and abuts the I-5 Freeway on the west side of the property. The site currently has a single-family house located at the northeastern most portion of the property fronting Pio Pico Drive, while the remaining portion of the site is predominately used for agricultural production. Historical photos and other documents show that a majority of the property has been used for agriculture purposes for over 70 years. Topographically, the site is relatively flat to very gently sloping in a southwesterly direction. On-site elevations range from approximately 82 to 110 feet above mean sea level. Access to the site will be provided by a new private street located off of Pio Pico Drive. CT 12-01/CDP 12/PUD 12-06 Miles Pacific Subdivision 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 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) CT 12-01/CDP 12/PUD 12-06 Miles Pacific Subdivision D I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ~ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. D I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT is required. D I find that the proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impaet(s)" on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact I) 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. D 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 Et.'VIRONMENTAL 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. 3-?!-rs Date 3-Lf-13 City Planner's Signature Date 3 Rev. 10/18/10 CT 12-01/CDP 12/PUD 12-06 Miles Pacific Subdivision 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 EIA-Initial Study analysis it is not possible to determine the level CT 12-01/CDP 12/PUD 12-06 Miles Pacific Subdivision 5 Rev. 10/18/10 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. CT 12-01/CDP 12/PUD 12-06 Miles Pacific Subdivision 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, b, c) No Impact. The project site is surrounded by existing single family homes and the I-5 Freeway and as such there are no public scenic vistas available from the site or across the site. No trees or rock outcroppings will be impacted by the proposed project. No historic buildings are located in or adjacent to the site. The area of proposed impact is not located within the viewshed of a State scenic highway or any State highway that is designated by CalTrans as eligible for listing as a scenic highway. No impact is assessed. d) Less than Significant Impact. Though the current use of the site produces a minimal level of light glare, the proposed use is consistent with the adjacent uses and will only produce light and glare in a comparable manner to its neighbors, and as such, the increase in light and glare will not contribute a significant amount of light or glare or create a significant impact. CT 12-01/CDP 12/PUD 12-06 Miles Pacific Subdivision 7 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) Less than Significant Impact. It is estimated that the project site has previously been used for agriculture for approximately 70 years. Although the site is currently used for agriculture, the project site is not designated as prime agricultural land in the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and is not identified on Map X as agricultural land subject to the LCP Agricultural Conversion Mitigation Fee. The project site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (California State Department of Conservation, June 1990); therefore, the project will not impact important agricultural resources. The project is subject to the disturbed/agriculture land in-lieu fee pursuant to the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan. CT 12-01/CDP 12/PUD 12-06 Miles Pacific Subdivision 8 Rev. 10/18/10 b) No Impact. The existing and proposed General Plan designation is Residential Low-Medium (RLM), which anticipates low to medium density residential development (0 to 4 du/ac). The project proposes single family residential at a density of 3.15 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the General Plan. The subject site is not encumbered by a Williamson Act contract. c) No Impact. The project would not conflict with the existing zoning or land uses within the project area or in adjacent areas. The project is not proposed within a forestry or timber zone, nor is any part of the project area used for forestry or timber purposes. As a result, no impacts will occur related to the rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland production. e) No Impact. The project is not located within or in the vicinity of a Federal, State, or locally designated forest and will not result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of any forest lands to a non-forest use either directly or indirectly. As a result, no impacts will occur related to conversion of forest lands. e) No Impact. The subject property is an infill site which is currently being used as a nursery to grow potted plants within greenhouses and is substantially surrounded by existing urban development. No changes proposed by the project will impact other farms or result in additional farmland conversion in the area as none are adjacent. CT 12-01/CDP 12/PUD 12-06 Miles Pacific Subdivision 9 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 (as the project is), 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 management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set CT 12-01/CDP 12/PUD 12-06 Miles Pacific Subdivision 10 Rev. 10/18/10 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 2000 through December 2004 indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (a total of 10 days during the 5-year period). No other violations of any air quality standards have been recorded during the 5-year time period. The project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and construction. Such emissions would be minimized through standard construction measures such as the use of properly tuned equipment and watering the site for dust control. Long-term emissions associated with travel to and from the project will be minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with the project, they would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard (comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The air basin is currently in a state non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 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. CT 12-01/CDP 12/PUD 12-06 Miles Pacific Subdivision 11 Rev. 10/18/10 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? 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 & b) Less than significant Impact. The City of Carlsbad has an adopted Habitat Management Plan (HMP), which is a comprehensive, citywide, program to identify how the City, in cooperation with the federal and state wildlife agencies, can preserve the diversity of habitat and protect sensitive biological resources within the City while allowing for additional development consistent with the City’s General Plan and its Growth Management Plan. In so doing, the Plan is intended to lead to citywide permits and authorization for the incidental take of sensitive species in conjunction with private development projects, public projects, and other activities, which are consistent with the Plan. As discussed in the subsequent passages, the project does not conflict with any of the provisions of the HMP. The 5.4-acre project site is primarily undeveloped with the exception of an existing single-family home, storage building and green house buildings, yet the majority of the property is extensively disturbed as it has been used for agriculture purposes for the past 70 years. The property is surrounded by detached single-family homes to the north, south and east, and abuts the I-5 Freeway to the west. According to the HMP, the site is identified as a Development Area, and is not located adjacent to any Standards Areas or Existing or Proposed Hardline Preserve Areas. CT 12-01/CDP 12/PUD 12-06 Miles Pacific Subdivision 12 Rev. 10/18/10 A Habitat Mapping Report of the project site was prepared by RC Biological Consulting, Inc. on October 19, 2012. According to the report, the entire previously graded site consists of developed lands and no native plant species are growing onsite. The site contains a single family residence, storage building, access road, and greenhouse buildings. According to the HMP, disturbed, eucalyptus and agricultural lands are a Group F habitat which do not have a preservation requirement and may be mitigated by an in-lieu fee. The developer, in accordance with the provisions of the HMP, is conditioned as part of the project to pay in-lieu fees for impacts to 5.4-acres of Group-F Habitat. Sensitive Plant Species According to the Habitat Mapping Report, no narrow endemic or other sensitive plant species listed by the HMP were observed onsite. A site survey of sensitive plant species listed in the HMP with a potential for occurrence on the project site was prepared. None of the species listed were identified on the site. The report states that there is no potential for the occurrence of narrow endemics on the property. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. Sensitive Wildlife Species According to the Habitat Mapping Report, no sensitive wildlife species listed by the HMP were observed onsite. Construction of the proposed project is not expected to significantly impede local wildlife because the subject area has not been identified by the HMP as a connectivity link or Core Area to be preserved. c, d, e, f) No Impact. The above Habitat Mapping Report does not identify any wetlands or wetland habitat on site. No tributary areas were identified on site. The City of Carlsbad has no adopted tree preservation policy or ordinance which would affect the subject project. The subject project will not significantly impact trees or other biological resources protected by such policy or ordinance. As stated above, the project does not conflict with the HMP. CT 12-01/CDP 12/PUD 12-06 Miles Pacific Subdivision 13 Rev. 10/18/10 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) No Impact. The City of Carlsbad Historic Resources Inventory identified no historic structures on the project site. b) Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A cultural resources study was completed for the proposed project by (Tony T. Quach and Mark S. Becker, PhD., RPA, with ASM Affiliates, Inc., dated October 2012) in order to provide a comprehensive inventory of any potential cultural resources within the 5.4 acre Miles Pacific Subdivision project site. An archeological pedestrian survey of the site and an institutional records search by the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) at San Diego State University (SDSU) were performed in accordance with CEQA Sec. 15064.5 criteria. The SCIC record search indicated that a single previously recorded cultural resource, SDI-17,672 is located within the proposed project boundaries. An inquiry to the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) also indicated the presence of cultural resources within 0.5 mile radius of the project boundary. From reports of previous finds of this site, it was found that the testing of the southwestern margin of SDI-17,672 produced small amounts of shell within the subsurface, though modern debris were also noted that occur within much of the levels. Though several pieces of shell were encountered on the exposed portions of the surface, it is difficult to definitely know whether this minimal presence of shell within the intersecting portion is primarily derived from prehistoric activity or rather from modern disturbances as the banks of Buena Vista Lagoon are less than 300 meters to the north of the project area. Lacking additional data on the subsurface character of the project area, mitigation measures are included to require Cultural resource monitoring by a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor to be on site during all ground disturbing activities associated with the proposed development. Through the implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in the Cultural resource study, impacts to any unforeseen or accidentally discovered cultural resources are reduced to a level of less than significant. c) No Impact. According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation performed by GeoSoils, Inc., dated October 31, 2012, Tertiary Santiago Formation was not encountered in the test excavations and borings for the project site. Encountering the Santiago Formation during site earthwork is not anticipated. d) No Impact. The project site is located within an urbanized area. No known human remains are located in the subject area. No known human remains are anticipated to be found in the subject area as the project will be constructed in previously developed and disturbed areas. No impact to human remains could be expected to result from implementation of the project. CT 12-01/CDP 12/PUD 12-06 Miles Pacific Subdivision 14 Rev. 10/18/10 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in 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. i.) No Impact. There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones within the City of Carlsbad and there is no other evidence of active or potentially active faults within the City. No impact is assessed. a. ii.–a iv.) Less than Significant Impact. There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zones within the City of Carlsbad and there is no other evidence of active or potentially active faults within the City. However, there are several active faults throughout Southern California, the closest of these is the Newport-Inglewood Fault located 5.3 miles to the west, and these potential faults could affect Carlsbad. A geotechnical investigation of the project site was prepared by GeoSoils, Inc. (October 31, 2012) to provide subsurface information and geotechnical recommendations specific to the proposed Miles Pacific residential subdivision. The report states that strong seismic ground shaking is a potential that affects all construction in this region of California. It is understood that the same building code standards, which ensure the relative safety of all new residential construction in the region, will be applied to the future units constructed on the proposed lots. Conditions of project approval require that the CT 12-01/CDP 12/PUD 12-06 Miles Pacific Subdivision 15 Rev. 10/18/10 project incorporate all recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation into the design of the project. According to the geotechnical investigation, the site geologic units encountered during the subsurface investigation and site reconnaissance included small, localized areas of undocumented artificial fill, localized Quaternary-age alluvium, Quaternary-age colluvium (topsoil), a Quaternary-age paleosol, and younger and older Quaternary-age paralic deposits (weathered and unweathered). The susceptibility of the site to experience damaging deformations from seismically-induced liquefaction and densification is relatively low owing to the dense, nature of the younger and older paralic deposits that underlie the site in the near-surface and the depth of the regional water table. Furthermore, the recommendations for remedial earthwork, re-compaction techniques, and foundations would reduce any significant liquefaction/densification potential. Some seismic densification of the adjoining un-mitigated site (s) may adversely influence planned improvements at the perimeter of the site. However, given the remedial earthwork and foundation recommendations provided within the geotechnical investigation report, the potential for the planned building to be affected by significant seismic densification or liquefaction of offsite soils is low and will reduce this impact to less than significant. The geotechnical investigation states that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided that the recommendations included in the report are incorporated into the design and construction phases of the project. The recommendations will be incorporated into the project conditions of approval. b) Less than Significant Impact. During finish grading, exposure of soils could lead to an increased chance for the erosion of soils from the site. However, such grading will follow best management practices for the control of erosion, such as straw bale or sandbag barriers, silt fences, slope roughening, and outlet protection in exposed areas. Finished grades will be promptly hydroseeded or otherwise protected as required per the adopted City Grading Ordinance. If necessary, temporary slope cover such as jute matting or mulch will be applied to newly graded slopes to reduce the potential for soil erosion or the loss of topsoil to a level that is considered to be less than significant. c & d) Less than Significant Impact. The Geotechnical Investigation indicates that existing debris fill, undocumented fill, topsoil, Paleosol, colluvium, and alluvium soils will require removal and re-compaction according to the recommendations in the report. On-site soils are generally low in expansion potential and recommendations for foundation design and construction are presented in the report. The report indicates that development of the property appears to be viable form a geotechnical viewpoint, provided that the recommendations presented in the report are properly incorporated into the design and construction phases of site development. e) No Impact. The proposed project does not propose septic tanks and will utilize the public sewer system. Therefore, there will be no impacts involving soils that support the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impact is assessed. CT 12-01/CDP 12/PUD 12-06 Miles Pacific Subdivision 16 Rev. 10/18/10 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VII. 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 & b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project is expected to generate GHG emissions in the short-term as a result of construction emissions and in the long-term as a result of automobile trips and energy consumption. Based on the GHG emission calculations contained within the Greenhouse Gas Assessment prepared for the project by LDN Consulting, Inc., January 24, 2013, the proposed project is expected to generate a total of 411.19 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions (CO2e). Of this, automobile trips would represent 310.08 metric tons of CO2e emissions, energy consumption would represent 95.80 metric tons of CO2e emissions, and project related construction emissions would represent 5.31 metric tons of CO2e emissions averaged over a 30 year period. The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) published a white paper with a suggested significance screening threshold criteria of 900 metric tons of GHGs. While the proposed project is expected to generate some short-term and long-term GHG emissions that could contribute directly and indirectly to the environment, the total GHG emissions (411.19 CO2e) generated by the project, combined with the state and federal reduction measures are not considered significant. Therefore, impacts from GHG emissions on the environment are considered to be less than significant. CT 12-01/CDP 12/PUD 12-06 Miles Pacific Subdivision 17 Rev. 10/18/10 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VIII. 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-c) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Limited Phase II Site Characterization Agricultural Residue Survey were prepared for the project property by GeoSoils, Inc., dated March 31 and August 4, 2011 respectively. The Phase II Site Characterization Agricultural Residue Survey concluded that the concentrations of DDE and DDT detected in earth materials on the subject property are at or sufficiently below the California Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSL), developed by the California Environmental Protections Agency (CEPA, 2005), so as not to represent a risk to human health. In contrast, Toxaphene was detected well above the CHHSLs and may possibly represent a risk to human health and CT 12-01/CDP 12/PUD 12-06 Miles Pacific Subdivision 18 Rev. 10/18/10 groundwater, if not mitigated. Based upon detectable concentrations of restricted agricultural chemical residues that exist on the site, additional sampling and testing will be required and that a detailed restricted agricultural chemical residue survey will be required prior to the start of earthwork. GeoSoils, Inc. has previously recommended, and the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health (DEH), Site Assessment & Mitigation Division (SAM) has approved, that affected soil be excavated, and on-site burial of impacted soils be performed to mitigate potential human health risks associated with the inhalation of and/or dermal contact with the pesticide Toxaphene. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment recommends that based on the age of the existing residential structure, an asbestos containing material and lead containing paint survey should be performed on the site by a licensed asbestos/lead contractor prior to the demolition of the existing residence, which will be incorporated as a mitigation measure. In addition, all trash, debris, and waste materials should be disposed of offsite, in accordance with current local, state, and federal disposal regulations. Any materials containing petroleum residues encountered during property improvements should be evaluated prior to removal and disposal, following proper procedures. Any buried trash/debris encountered should be evaluated by an experienced environmental consultant prior to removal. By following the recommendations contained within the referenced reports, the site is suitable for the proposed project, and exposure of people to hazardous materials is considered to be less than significant. The project also involves grading operations and construction activity for the future development of single-family homes. During the construction phases of the proposed project, construction equipment and materials typically associated with land development (i.e. petroleum products, paint, oils and solvents) will be transported and used onsite. Upon completion of construction of the project, some use of hazardous cleaning products on the site may occur. Other than during this construction phase, the project will not routinely utilize hazardous substances or materials. All transport, handling, use, and disposal of any cleaning substances will comply with all federal, state, and local laws regulating the management and use of such materials. No extraordinary risk of accidental explosion or the release of hazardous substances is anticipated with construction, development, and implementation or operation of the proposed project. It is concluded that the routine amount of hazardous materials utilized during the construction period is not significant, and therefore the impact to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is considered to be less that significant. Although Buena Vista Elementary School is located approximately 500 feet to the southeast of the subject site, by following the recommendations contained within the referenced reports, exposure of people to hazardous materials is considered to be less than significant. d) No Impact. The subject property is not included on any lists or registry of sites containing hazardous materials. No impact is assessed. e) No Impact. The subject site is located approximately 4.5 miles northwest of the McClellan-Palomar Airport. Because the site is located outside of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Area of Influence and furthermore is not located within any Flight Activity Area or Runway Protection Zone, it is concluded that the site will not cause a safety hazard for people residing within the project area. No impact is assessed. f) No Impact. No private airstrip exists within the vicinity of the subject project. No impact is assessed. g) No Impact. The proposed project involves the redevelopment of a nursery and is located along the west side of Pio Pico Drive near the intersection of Pio Pico Drive and Las Flores Drive. Neither construction nor the operation of the proposed project facilities will significantly affect, block, or interfere with traffic on public streets, including any streets that would be used for an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No emergency response or evacuation plan directs evacuees through the project site, and no improvements are proposed by the project in any area which would physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h) No Impact. The project is not adjacent to open space or natural habitat, and is not located in an area that will expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. As such, no fire suppression plans are required for this project and no impact is assessed. CT 12-01/CDP 12/PUD 12-06 Miles Pacific Subdivision 19 Rev. 10/18/10 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? 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) Less Than Significant Impact. The project is required by law to comply with all federal, state and local water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act, California Administrative Code Title 23, specific basin plan CT 12-01/CDP 12/PUD 12-06 Miles Pacific Subdivision 20 Rev. 10/18/10 objectives identified in the "Water Quality Control Plan for San Diego Basin" (WQCP), and the city's Standard Urban Storm Water Management Plan (SUSMP). The WQCP contains specific objectives for the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit, which includes the requirement to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) and the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs). Construction activities for this project are covered under state-wide construction permit Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ issued by the State Water Resource Control Board Permit. As part of the permit requirements, the applicant will prepare and submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the project. Through each phase of construction, the SWPPP will identify specific erosion control and storm water pollution prevention plan practices that will be implemented to protect downstream water quality. Post-development activities for this project are covered under Order No. R9-2007-0001 issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region. As part of these requirements, the applicant must prepare and submit a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) addressing what treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be constructed to treat the post-development runoff from the project. The SWMP will address how pollutants from this project will be reduced, captured, filtered, and/or treated prior to discharge from the project site. Through this process, the project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and impacts are therefore considered to be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project does not propose to directly draw any groundwater; instead it will be served via existing public water distribution lines within the public right-of-way adjacent to the site. Existing water lines will adequately serve the project’s water demands. Rainwater infiltration is needed to provide adequate groundwater recharge. A Preliminary Hydrology Report and a Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan dated May 24, 2012, was prepared for the project by BHA, Inc. According to the reports, the project incorporates Low Impact Development (LID) design features, which promote infiltration of storm water run-off by proposing to minimize impervious surface areas, directing run-off to landscaped swales and to two bio-retention basins. The implementation of the LID design features will mitigate the potential impacts that the development can have on stormwater. The project will not significantly deplete groundwater supplies or quality. Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant. c) No Impact. There are no streams or rivers within or adjacent to the site. Therefore, no impact is assessed. d - f) Less than Significant Impact. The Preliminary Hydrology Report and Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan dated May 24, 2012 , for the Miles Pacific project indicate that the proposed drainage design does not adversely affect surrounding properties and the storm drain system adequately drains the proposed project in a 100-year storm event. Construction of the proposed project improvements is required by law to comply with all federal, state and local water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act and associated NPDES regulations and temporary impacts associated with the construction operation will be mitigated. The total post development runoff discharging from the site will not significantly exceed the pre-development amounts. The project incorporates Low Impact Development (LID) design features, which promote infiltration of storm water run-off by proposing to minimize impervious surface areas, directing run-off to landscaped swales and proposes two bio- retention basins to serve as a treatment BMP to attain water quality objectives. Therefore, the project will not violate any water quality standards, deplete groundwater supplies or quality, substantially alter existing drainage patterns, cause substantial erosion or flooding, or significantly impact the capacity of stormwater drainage systems. The Hydrology Study and Storm Water Management Plan, dated May 24, 2012, for the Miles Pacific Subdivision project indicates that Standard Storm Water Permanent Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be incorporated into the project design to address water quality for the project. BMPs will be implemented during construction and post construction phases, which specifically address sediments, nutrients, trash and debris, oxygen demanding substances, oil and grease, bacteria and viruses, and pesticides. As discussed in the sections above, the project will not significantly increase pollutant discharges and will not alter the water quality of the receiving surface waters, and the amount of discharge and velocity of run-off will not significantly exceed pre-development levels. As a result of these project design features, there will be less than significant impact to water quality, site erosion, and pollutant discharge, and no receiving water quality will be adversely affected through implementation of the proposed project g-j) No Impact. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to Flood Insurance Rate Map, Map No. 06073C0761G, Effective Date May 16, 2012; and according to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, Catastrophic Dam Failure Inundation, Tsunami and Seiche CT 12-01/CDP 12/PUD 12-06 Miles Pacific Subdivision 21 Rev. 10/18/10 Hazard Zone Maps, November 1992, the project site is not located within an area affected by tsunami, seiche, or mudflow, nor is the site located within a Catastrophic Dam Failure Inundation Area. Therefore, no impact is assessed. CT 12-01/CDP 12/PUD 12-06 Miles Pacific Subdivision 22 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-c) No Impact. The project involves subdivision of the site into17 residential lots for the construction of detached single-family dwelling units, which are consistent with the surrounding land uses. The site does not physically divide an established community, nor does the proposed project conflict with any existing or proposed land use plans or policies, or habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans of the City of Carlsbad. The project is consistent with both the City of Carlsbad General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use designations, as both are identified as RLM (Residential Low-Medium Density). RLM anticipates single-family dwellings at 0 to 4 dwelling units per acre. The project is constructing at a density of 3.15 dwelling units per acre, which is within the RLM density range. Therefore, no impact is assessed. 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-b) No Impact. There are not any known significant mineral resources within the site or immediate vicinity. CT 12-01/CDP 12/PUD 12-06 Miles Pacific Subdivision 23 Rev. 10/18/10 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? 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) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the findings and modeling results of the Acoustical Site Assessment prepared for the project by LDN Consulting, Inc., dated November 12, 2012, traffic noise levels generated from the Interstate 5 freeway will exceed the City’s exterior 60 dBA CNEL noise standard for all units within the proposed project. Therefore, mitigation will be required. In order to meet the exterior 60 dBA CNEL standard, the project would require a 14-foot high wall placed at the top of the proposed two foot berm along Interstate 5 for lots 7-11 and a 6 foot barrier around the perimeters of the remaining lots. Since a 14-foot high wall is not practicable nor supported by City regulations, the proposed mitigation plan consists of incorporating a six foot high barrier, in combination with a two foot berm for lots 7-11 and a six foot sound wall surrounding the project site. As permitted by the City’s Noise Element of the General Plan, the project will be conditioned whereby property notification in writing along with a deed disclosure must also be given to all potential purchasers that the property they are purchasing does not meet Carlsbad exterior noise standards for residential property. Interior noise levels within the project could potentially exceed the City’s 45 dBA CNEL noise standard due to vehicular traffic on the 5 Freeway. Thus, interior noise mitigation, i.e. specialized door and window treatments, would be required for a future home on all lots as recommended by the Acoustical Site Assessment. Consistent with this assessment, the project will be conditioned to provide an interior noise study prior to issuance of building permits in order to demonstrate that the architectural design would limit interior noise levels to 45 dBA CNEL. This will mitigate the impact to a level of less than significant. b & d) Less Than Significant Impact. The anticipated grading operation associated with the proposed single-family lots will result in a temporary and minor increase in groundborne vibration and ambient noise levels. CT 12-01/CDP 12/PUD 12-06 Miles Pacific Subdivision 24 Rev. 10/18/10 Following the conclusion of grading, ambient noise levels and vibrations are expected to return to pre-existing levels. c) No Impact. The project consists of 17 single-family lots, which are consistent in use and intensity with the surrounding residential development. As such, the project would not result in sustained ambient noise levels that would exceed the established standards. No impact assessed. e) No Impact. The subject site is located approximately 4.5 miles northwest of the McClellan-Palomar Airport. Because the site is located outside of the Airport Area of Influence and furthermore is not located within any Flight Activity Area, Runway Protection Zone or noise contour lines, it is concluded that subdividing the site into 17 single-family lots and locating future homes at this site will not cause airport noise impacts for people residing within the project area. No impact is assessed. f) No Impact. No private airstrip exists within the vicinity of the subject project. No impact is assessed. CT 12-01/CDP 12/PUD 12-06 Miles Pacific Subdivision 25 Rev. 10/18/10 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? a-c) No Impact. The project will allow for the development of 17 single-family dwelling units, which is consistent with the intensity of the surrounding land uses. The property in the immediate vicinity, including the project site, is designated for RLM (0-4 du/ac) residential low medium density development and was analyzed in the City’s Growth Management Plan accordingly. The density of the proposed development (3.15 du/ac) is consistent with the City of Carlsbad General Plan and Growth Management Plan. One single family home will be demolished; however, it is owned by the Miles Pacific Limited Partnership, who is developing the project. Therefore, the project will not displace substantial numbers of people and no impact is assessed. CT 12-01/CDP 12/PUD 12-06 Miles Pacific Subdivision 26 Rev. 10/18/10 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. i – v) No Impact. The project’s size of 17 single-family lots for the future development of detached single- family residences is consistent with the General Plan and therefore will not affect the provision and availability of public facilities (fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, libraries, etc.). Through the Carlsbad Growth Management Plan and Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP), the impacts of development on public services were analyzed and the project has been designed and/or conditioned to provide adequate public services to meet the needs of development. The project will be conditioned to comply with the Zone 1 LFMP performance standards to ensure that adequate public facilities and services are provided prior to or concurrent with the development. Since single family residential development was anticipated and analyzed by the General Plan and Zone 1 LFMP for this site, no public service impacts will occur as a result of this project. CT 12-01/CDP 12/PUD 12-06 Miles Pacific Subdivision 27 Rev. 10/18/10 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? a-b) No Impact. The project’s size of 17 single-family lots for the future development of detached single-family residences will not result in the deterioration of existing neighborhood or regional parks or cause such parks to be expanded. The General Plan and Growth Management Plan anticipated single family residential development at this site, and the North-West Quadrant park district, which the project is within, currently maintains a surplus of park acreage for its population level, so no adverse physical effects on the recreation facilities will occur. CT 12-01/CDP 12/PUD 12-06 Miles Pacific Subdivision 28 Rev. 10/18/10 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) Less Than Significant Impact. The 17 proposed single family detached homes will generate 170 Average Daily Trips (ADT), which is not substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. While the increase in traffic from the proposed project may be slightly noticeable, the street system has been designed and sized to accommodate traffic from the project and cumulative development in the City of Carlsbad. The proposed project would not, therefore, cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The impacts from the proposed project are, therefore, less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and one highway segment in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The existing LOS on these designated roads and highway in Carlsbad is: CT 12-01/CDP 12/PUD 12-06 Miles Pacific Subdivision 29 Rev. 10/18/10 LOS Rancho Santa Fe Road “A-D” El Camino Real “A-D” Palomar Airport Road “A-D” SR 78 “F” The Congestion Management Program’s (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is “E”, or LOS “F” if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS “F” in 1990). Accordingly, all designated roads and highway 78 is currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) “E” standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads and highway and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short-term and at buildout. c) No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, McClellan-Palomar Airport. It would not, therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed. d) No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s general plan and zoning. Therefore, it would not increase traffic hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed. e) No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. No impact assessed. f) No Impact. The proposed project is not requesting a parking variance. Additionally, the project would comply with the City’s parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply. No impact assessed. CT 12-01/CDP 12/PUD 12-06 Miles Pacific Subdivision 30 Rev. 10/18/10 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-g) No Impact. The proposed residential development will be required to comply with all Regional Water Quality Control Board Requirements. In addition, the Zone 1 LFMP anticipated that the project site would be developed with a residential use and wastewater treatment facilities were planned and designed to accommodate future residential uses on the site. All public facilities, including water facilities, wastewater treatment facilities and drainage facilities, have been planned and designed to accommodate the growth projections for the City at build-out. The proposed development will increase the demand for these facilities; however, the proposed density (3.15 dwelling units per acre) is less than originally anticipated (3.2 dwelling units per acre) for this site and thus will not result in an overall increase in the City’s growth projection in the NW quadrant. Therefore, the project does not create development that will result in a significant need to expand or construct new water facilities/supplies, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage facilities. No impact assessed. CT 12-01/CDP 12/PUD 12-06 Miles Pacific Subdivision 31 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) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project's requires mitigation, as outlined in the Cultural Resources, Hazards/Hazardous Materials, and Noise sections of this report. Cultural Resource mitigation measures include the monitoring by a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor to be on site during all ground disturbing activities associated with the proposed development thus reducing the impacts to less than significant. Based upon detectable concentrations of restricted agricultural chemical residues that exist on the site that may possibly represent a risk to human and groundwater, hazardous material mitigation includes special handling and disposal of the affected soil and that a detailed restricted agricultural chemical residue survey be required prior to the start of earthwork. Additionally, the existing house will be analyzed for asbestos and lead based paint prior to demolition. By following the recommendations contained within the referenced reports, exposure of people to hazardous materials is considered to be less than significant. The project will be impacted by traffic noise levels from the Interstate 5 freeway that exceed the City’s exterior 60 dBA CNEL noise threshold. Therefore, proposed mitigation consists of incorporating a six foot high barrier, in combination with a two foot berm for lots 7-11 and a six foot sound wall surrounding the project site. Property notification in writing along with deed disclosure must also be given to all potential purchasers. Because interior noise levels within the project could potentially exceed the City threshold of 45 dBA CNEL, interior noise mitigation, i.e. specialized door and window treatments, would be required for a future home on all lots as recommended by the Acoustical Site Assessment. Consistent with this assessment, the project will be conditioned to provide an interior noise study prior to issuance of building permits in order to demonstrate that the architectural design would limit interior noise levels to 45 dBA CNEL. This will mitigate the impact to a level of less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional growth for the greater San Diego area, and local General Plan Land Use policies are incorporated into SANDAG projections. Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc., are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the region. All of the City’s development standards and regulations are consistent with the region wide standards. The City’s standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and CT 12-01/CDP 12/PUD 12-06 Miles Pacific Subdivision 32 Rev. 10/18/10 drainage standards, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that development within the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a cumulatively considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As described above, the project would contribute to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. However, the air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the development is implemented. The County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The CMA had determined, based on the City’s growth projections in the General Plan, that these designated roadways will function at acceptable levels of service in the short-term and at build-out. The project is consistent with the City’s growth projections, and therefore, the cumulative impacts from the project to the regional circulation system are less than significant. With regard to any other potential impacts associated with the project, City standards and regulations will ensure that development of the site will not result in any significant cumulatively considerable impacts. c) Less than Significant Impact. Based upon the fact that future development of the site will comply with all City standards, the project will not result in any direct or indirect substantial adverse environmental effects on human beings. However, the project site is located in an area where human beings are exposed to significant levels of noise generated by traffic from the Interstate 5 freeway. As discussed above, potential impacts from I-5 traffic noise can’t be reduced to comply with the City’s exterior noise standard (60 dBA CNEL). However, the Noise Element of the General Plan allows for the approval of such projects subject to the condition that potential purchasers of such properties be notified in writing and through deed disclosure that the subject property does not meet Carlsbad’s exterior noise standard. The project will be appropriately conditioned. Those mitigation measures will be incorporated as conditions of project approval. Development of the site and structures will be required to comply with all applicable Federal, State, Regional and City regulations, which will ensure that development of the site will not result in adverse impacts on human beings, either directly or indirectly CT 12-01/CDP 12/PUD 12-06 Miles Pacific Subdivision 33 Rev. 10/18/10 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. CT 12-01/CDP 12/PUD 12-06 Miles Pacific Subdivision 34 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. Historic Resource Inventory, City of Carlsbad, April 16, 1991. 6. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for McClellan Palomar Airport, Carlsbad, California, San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, as amended October 4, 2004. 7. Zone 1 Local Facility Management Plan, City of Carlsbad, September 1, 1987. 8. City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, Catastrophic Dam Failure Inundation, Tsunami and Seiche Hazard Zone Maps, November 1992 9. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Map No. 06073C0761G, May16, 2012. 10. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Miles Pacific, 2373 and 2375 Pio Pico Drive, Carlsbad, California, GeoSoils, Inc., March 31,2011. 11. Limited Phase II Site Characterization Agricultural Residue Survey, Miles Pacific, 2373 and 2375 Pio Pico Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008, GeoSoils, Inc., August 4, 2011. 12. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed 17-lot subdivision, 2373 and 2375 Pio Pico Drive, Carlsbad, California, October 31, 2012. 13. Cultural Resource Study for the Miles Pacific Project, ASM Affiliates, Inc., Tony T. Quach and Mark S. Becker, PhD., RPA, October 2012. 14. Acoustical Noise Study, Miles Tentative Map – Carlsbad, CA, LDN Consulting, Inc., November 12, 2012. 15. Storm Water Management Plan, Miles Pacific Tentative Subdivision Map, BHA, Inc., May 24, 2012. 16. Preliminary Drainage/Hydrology Study, Miles Pacific Subdivision, BHA, Inc., May 24, 2012. 17. Biological Report, Miles Pacific Project, RC Biological Consulting, Inc., October 19, 2012. 18. Greenhouse Gas Assessment, Miles Tentative Map – Carlsbad, CA, LDN Consulting, Inc., January 24, 2013. CT 12-01/CDP 12/PUD 12-06 Miles Pacific Subdivision 35 Rev. 10/18/10 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1. CUL-1 - Prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities, the project developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor ground-disturbing activities. The qualified archaeologist shall be on-site during all grading, trenching, and other ground-disturbing activities unless otherwise agreed upon by the archaeologist and city staff. The City shall verify that the archaeological monitor has been retained prior to the issuance of a grading permit. In the event any potential cultural resource is uncovered during the course of the project construction, ground-disturbing activities in the vicinity of the find shall be redirected until the nature and extent of the find can be evaluated by the archaeological monitor. If cultural resources are encountered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect grading/trenching while the cultural resources are documented and assessed. If archaeological resources are encountered during excavation or grading, the archaeological monitor shall direct the contractor to avoid all work in the immediate area for a reasonable period of time to allow the archaeologist to evaluate the significance of the finding and determine an appropriate course of action. The appropriate course of action may include, but not be limited to avoidance, recordation, relocation, excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or other appropriate measures. The Project Contractor shall provide a reasonable period of time for pursuing the appropriate activities, including salvage of discovered resources. Salvage operation requirements pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines shall be followed. Recovered artifactual materials and data shall be cataloged and analyzed. A report shall be completed describing the methods and results of the monitoring and data recovery program. Artifacts shall be curated with accompanying catalog to current professional repository standards or the collection will be repatriated to the appropriate Native American Tribe(s), as specified in the pre-excavation agreement. If any human remains are discovered, all construction activity in the immediate area of the discovery shall cease immediately, and the Archaeological monitor shall notify the County Medical Examiner pursuant to California Health and Safety Section 7050.5. Should the Medical Examiner determine the human remains to be Native American; the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The Native American Monitor (pursuant to Mitigation Measure CUL-2), in consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission, shall inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American remains and may recommend to the City of Carlsbad, and the project contractor, actions for treating or disposing, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. The recommendation may include the scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. The project contractor shall provide a reasonable period of time for salvage of discovered human remains before resuming construction activities. 2. CUL-2 - Prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities, the project developer shall retain the services of a Native American monitor. The purpose of this monitoring will be to allow for tribal observation of trenching excavation including formalized procedures for the treatment of Native American human remains and burial, ceremonial, or cultural items that may be uncovered during any ground disturbance activities. The City shall verify that the Native American monitor has been retained prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Prior to implementation of the monitoring, a pre-excavation agreement shall be developed between the appropriate Native American Tribe and the developer. The Native American representative(s) shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the contractors to explain the requirements of the program. The Native American monitor shall be on-site during all grading, trenching, and other ground-disturbing activities unless otherwise agreed upon by the monitor and city staff. 3. HAZ-1 - Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a detailed restricted agricultural chemical residue survey is required as detectable concentrations of restricted agricultural chemical residues exist on the site. In addition, the majority of the site, approximately 17,500 cubic yards of affected soil may require special handling and disposal of the affected soil. An application to the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health, Site Assessment & Mitigation Division with evidence of that approval shall be submitted to the City of Carlsbad prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 4. HAZ-2 - Prior to demolition of the residence on the property an asbestos containing materials (ACM) and lead containing paint (LCP) survey shall be performed on the site by a licensed asbestos/lead contractor. CT 12-01/CDP 12/PUD 12-06 Miles Pacific Subdivision Evidence of the work performed shall be submitted to the City of Carlsbad prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 5. HAZ-3-All trash, debris, and waste materials should be disposed of offsite, in accordance with current local, state, and federal disposal regulations. Any materials containing petroleum residues encountered during property improvements should be evaluated prior to removal and disposal, following proper procedures. Any buried trash/debris encountered should be evaluated by an experienced environmental consultant prior to removaL 6. HAZ-4-Based on the concentration levels DDE, DDT and Toxaphene at 2 feet across the majority of the site, approximately 17,500 cubic yards of affected soil may require special handling and disposal at the site. An application to the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health, Site Assessment & Mitigation Division is required with evidence of that approval and/or recommendations shall be submitted to the City of Carlsbad prior to the issuance of a grading permit. On-site burial typically would be restricted to selective placement of impacted soils to depths no greater than about I Y, feet below the lowest utility in the street areas, no greater than 7 feet below residential slabs, side and front yards, and no greater than 12 feet below planned grades within the backyards within the development. Affected soils should be buried within the property boundary only, and placed so as not to adversely affect groundwater oi surface water. The developer's soils engineer along with the City's cons1Iuction management and inspection division shall monitor the placement and disposal of affected soil at the site. 7. NOS-1 -Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall submit a supplemental interior acoustical analysis from the acoustical consultant stating that the architectural plans have been designed in compliance with the recommendutions stated in the acoustical report prepared by LDN Consulting, Inc., dated November 12, 2012. 8. NOS-2 -Property notification in writing along with a deed disclosure must be given to all potential purchasers declaring that the property they are purchasing does not meet Carlsbad exterior noise standards for residential property. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED TilE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date 36 Rev. !0/18110 Page 1 of 4 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: Pacific Miles Subdivision FILE NUMBERS: CT 12-01/CDP 12-15/PUD 12-06 APPROVAL DATE: The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City’s monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). Mitigation Measure Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks CULTURAL RESOURCES CUL-1 -. Prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities, the project developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor ground-disturbing activities. The qualified archaeologist shall be on-site during all grading, trenching, and other ground-disturbing activities unless otherwise agreed upon by the archaeologist and city staff. The City shall verify that the archaeological monitor has been retained prior to the issuance of a grading permit. In the event any potential cultural resource is uncovered during the course of the project construction, ground-disturbing activities in the vicinity of the find shall be redirected until the nature and extent of the find can be evaluated by the archaeological monitor. If cultural resources are encountered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect grading/trenching while the cultural resources are documented and assessed. If archaeological resources are encountered during excavation or grading, the archaeological monitor shall direct the contractor to avoid all work in the immediate area for a reasonable period of time to allow the archaeologist to evaluate the significance of the finding and determine an appropriate course of action. The appropriate course of action may include, but not be limited to avoidance, recordation, relocation, excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or other appropriate measures. The Project Contractor shall provide a reasonable period of time for pursuing the appropriate activities, including salvage of discovered resources. Salvage operation requirements pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines shall be followed. Recovered artifactual materials and data shall be cataloged and analyzed. A report shall be completed describing the methods and results of the monitoring and data recovery Project - Prior to Grading and During All Construction Activities Planning Division & Engineering -Utilities Department Page 2 of 4 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 program. Artifacts shall be curated with accompanying catalog to current professional repository standards or the collection will be repatriated to the appropriate Native American Tribe(s), as specified in the pre-excavation agreement. If any human remains are discovered, all construction activity in the immediate area of the discovery shall cease immediately, and the Archaeological monitor shall notify the County Medical Examiner pursuant to California Health and Safety Section 7050.5. Should the Medical Examiner determine the human remains to be Native American; the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The Native American Monitor (pursuant to Mitigation Measure CUL-2), in consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission, shall inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American remains and may recommend to the City of Carlsbad, and the project contractor, actions for treating or disposing, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. The recommendation may include the scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. The project contractor shall provide a reasonable period of time for salvage of discovered human remains before resuming construction activities. CUL-2 - Prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities, the project developer shall retain the services of a Native American monitor. The purpose of this monitoring will be to allow for tribal observation of trenching excavation including formalized procedures for the treatment of Native American human remains and burial, ceremonial, or cultural items that may be uncovered during any ground disturbance activities. The City shall verify that the Native American monitor has been retained prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Prior to implementation of the monitoring, a pre-excavation agreement shall be developed between the appropriate Native American Tribe and the developer. The Native American representative(s) shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the contractors to explain the requirements of the program. The Native American monitor shall be on-site during all grading, trenching, and other ground-disturbing activities unless otherwise agreed upon by the monitor and city staff. Project - Prior to Grading and During All Construction Activities Planning Division & Engineering -Utilities Department Page 3 of 4 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 HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HAZ-1 – Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a detailed restricted agricultural chemical residue survey is required as detectable concentrations of restricted agricultural chemical residues exist on the site. In addition, the majority of the site, approximately 17,500 cubic yards of affected soil may require special handling and disposal of the affected soil. An application to the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health, Site Assessment & Mitigation Division with evidence of that approval shall be submitted to the City of Carlsbad prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Project - Prior to Grading Planning and Engineering Division HAZ-2 – Prior to demolition of the residence on the property an asbestos containing materials (ACM) and lead containing paint (LCP) survey shall be performed on the site by a licensed asbestos/lead contractor. Evidence of the work performed shall be submitted to the City of Carlsbad prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Project – Prior to Grading Planning and Engineering Division HAZ-3 – All trash, debris, and waste materials should be disposed of offsite, in accordance with current local, state, and federal disposal regulations. Any materials containing petroleum residues encountered during property improvements should be evaluated prior to removal and disposal, following proper procedures. Any buried trash/debris encountered should be evaluated by an experienced environmental consultant prior to removal. Project – Prior to Grading Planning and Engineering Division Page 4 of 4 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 HAZ-4 – Based on the concentration levels DDE, DDT and Toxaphene at 2 feet across the majority of the site, approximately 17,500 cubic yards of affected soil may require special handling and disposal at the site. An application to the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health, Site Assessment & Mitigation Division is required with evidence of that approval and/or recommendations shall be submitted to the City of Carlsbad prior to the issuance of a grading permit. On-site burial typically would be restricted to selective placement of impacted soils to depths no greater than about 1 ½ feet below the lowest utility in the street areas, no greater than 7 feet below residential slabs, side and front yards, and no greater than 12 feet below planned grades within the backyards within the development. Affected soils should be buried within the property boundary only, and placed so as not to adversely affect groundwater or surface water. The developer’s soils engineer along with the City’s construction management and inspection division shall monitor the placement and disposal of affected soil at the site. Project – Prior to Grading Planning and Engineering Division Construction Management and Inspection Division NOISE NOS-1 – Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall submit a supplemental interior acoustical analysis from the acoustical consultant stating that the architectural plans have been designed in compliance with the recommendations stated in the acoustical report prepared by LDN Consulting, Inc., dated November 12, 2012. Project – Prior to Building Permit Planning and Building Division NOS-2 - Property notification in writing along with a deed disclosure must be given to all potential purchasers declaring that the property they are purchasing does not meet Carlsbad exterior noise standards for residential property. Project – Prior to Final Map. Planning Division ADDENDUM TO THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR MILES PACIFIC SUBDIVISION CT 12-01/PUD 12-08/CDP 12-15 EXIDBIT "ADDM" The purpose of this Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration is to describe revisions to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program associated with the Miles Pacific Subdivision project, and to state the determination that this revision does not create any new significant environmental effects, that none of the conditions contained in Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have occurred, and that a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration is not required. The revisions contained in this addendum clarify language contained within Mitigation Measures CUL-l and CUL-2 to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Comments received from the Department of Toxic Substances Control and Caltrans were previously addressed in the MND and MMRP and do not warrant further mitigation measures. The following clarifications/revisions are to be added to mitigation measures CUL-l and CUL-2: • Any reference made within the MND document to the Native American monitor is specific to the "Luiseno" Native American monitor; • Both the archaeological monitor and/or the Native American monitor may halt ground disturbing activities if a cultural resource and/or archaeological artifact deposit or cultural feature is discovered; • The Tribe must be consulted if a significant cultural resource and/or unique archaeological resource is discovered during ground disturbing activities; • When cultural resources are discovered, a Luiseno Native American monitor must be present during any testing or cataloging of those resources; • Any cultural resources unearthed during the ground disturbing activities including fill material that are not collected by the archaeologist, a Luiseno Native American monitor may at their discretion collect said resources and provide them to the Tribe for respectful and dignified treatment in accordance with the Tribe's cultural and spiritual traditions; and • When suspected Native American remains are unearthed, those remains should remain in situ and protected until the most likely descendant can be determined by the Native American Heritage Commission. These clarifications/revisions to the Mitigation Measures are not considered substantial or significant as it relates to the environmental effects associated with the project, or the conditions contained in Section 15162 of CEQA, and a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration is not required. S:C-9-13 Date: DonNeu City Planner SAN LUIS REY BAND OF MISSION INDIANS Greg Fisher City Planner Planning Division City of Carlsbad 1889 Sunset Drive • Vista, California 92081 760-724-8505 • FAX 760"724-2172 www.slrmissionindians.org April19, 2013 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Greg.Fisher@carlsbadca.gov 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 RE: COMMENTS ON THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE MILES PACIFIC SUBDIVISION (CASE NO. CT 12-01/CDP 12-15/PUD 12-06) Dear Mr. Fisher: We, the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians ("Tribe"), have received and reviewed the City of Carlsbad's ("City's") Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") and all of its supporting documentation as it pertains specifically to the protection and preservation of Native American cultural resources that may be located within the parameters of the Miles Pacific Subdivision ("Project's") property boundaries. After our review, the Tribe believes that with the incorporation of additional measures of mitigation for cultural resources as proposed in this comment letter, the Project should be allowed to proceed as proposed 1• As you are aware, we are a San Diego County Tribe whose traditional territory includes the current cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Vista, San Marcos and Escondido, as well as the unincorporated communities of northern San Diego County, such as, but not limited to, Fallbrook and Bonsall. The Tribe is resolute in the preservation and protection of cultural, archaeological and historical sites within all these jurisdictions. It is the Tribe's understanding that the Project will consist of the demolition and excavation of several existing structures established within the Project's boundaries, the subdivision , re- grade and construction of 17 single-family residential lots on a 5.4 acre parcel. The Tribe further understands that the Project's 5.4 acres are located on the west side of Pio Pico Drive near the intersection of Pio Pico Drive and Las Flores Drive ("Project Site"). As the City is aware through previous government-to-government consultations, this area is of significant cultural 1 We understand that the comment period ended on March 14, 2013; however, we respectfully request that our comments be included in the official public record for this Project. SLR Comments Regarding Miles Pacific Subdivision, Carlsbad, CA Page 1 importance to the Tribe and the Luisefio people due to its close proximity to the Buena Vista Creek and known cultural resource sites and/or sacred places. As stated earlier, the Tribe has reviewed the associated environmental documents for this Project, including but not"limited to the MND Initial Study Checklist for Cultural Resources (Section V) and Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2. Although the majority of the Tribe's concerns are addressed within the MND, several concerns still remain for the Tribe that the Tribe would like the City to address. I. THE PRESENCE OF A LUISENO NATIVE AMERICAN MONITOR. DURING ALL EARTH DISTURBING ACTIVITIES IS JUSTIFIED, AND AS SUCH, LUISENO NATIVE AMERICAN MONITORS SHOULD BE CONTRACTED WITH DURING THIS PROJECT. As discussed in our previous communications, the Tribe is in agreement with the City that Luisefio Native American monitors should be utilized during ground and/or earth disturbing activities for this Project. As stated earlier, the Tribe has reviewed the MND for this Project, as well as conducted our own research of the Tribe's Sacred Land Files, and has spoken with our Tribal Elders regarding the significance of the Project Site. A multitude of Native American . sacred sites are known to be within a mile radius of this Project Site and a shell processing/cultural activity site is present within the confines of the Project's boundaries. In addition, the presence of alluvium and colluvium soils also suggests that there is a high · probability of discovering subsurface resources at the Project Site. Therefore, the Tribe supports the MND's Cultural Resource Mitigation Measures 2 ("CUL-2") in requiring the presence of a Luisefio Native American monitor. In addition, the Tribe respectfully requests that the following language of CUL-l and 2 be modified and/or amended prior to the adoption of this MND. Currently, the CUL-l states, "If cultural resources are encountered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect grading/trenching while the cultural resources are documented and assessed." The Tribe suggests that the sentence and/or mitigation measure in CUL-l be clarified, and/or restated in CUL-2, that both the archaeological monitor and/or the Native American monitor may halt ground disturbing activities if a cultural resource and/or archaeological artifact deposit or cultural feature is discovered ... " It is imperative that Native American monitors share in the responsibility of temporarily halting ground disturbing activities when a cultural resource or archaeological resource are discovered in order for the resource to be properly identified and not destroyed by heavy machinery. Therefore, the Tribe respectfully requests that the language authorizing the temporary haltingof ground disturbing activities be modified as herein stated. II. SLR STRONGLY RECOMMENDS AND REQUESTS THAT ADDITIONAL MEASURES OF MITIGATION BE ADOPTED BY THE CITY IN ORDER TO LESSEN ANY ADDITIONAL NEGATIVE IMPACT TO OUR KNOWN NATIVE AMERICAN CULTURAL RESOURCES. SLR Comments Regarding Miles Pacific Subdivision, Carlsbad, CA Page 2 Furthermore, the Tribe strongly recommends and requests that additional measures of mitigation be adopted by the City in order to lessen any additional negative impact to our known Native American cultural resources. A. · The Tribe Must Be Consulted If A Significant Cultural Resource And/or Unique Archaeological Resource Is Discovered During Ground Disturbing Activities. If a significant cultural resource and/or unique archaeological resource are unearthed during ground disturbing activities for this Project, the Tribe respectfully requests that they be notified and consulted with in regards to the respectful and dignified treatment of those resources. The Tribe's preference will always be for avoidance and that the resource be protected and preserved in perpetuity. If however, relocaiion and/or a data recovery plan is authorized by the City as the Lead Agency, the Tribe respectfully requests that as a condition of any authorization, the Tribe be consulted regarding the drafting and finalization of any such recovery. These resources are evidence of our ancestors' lost history and, as such, we must have a voice and be a part of how those resources are treated and preserved for future generations. Moreover, when cultural resources are discovered during the Project, if the archaeologist collects such resources, a Luiseiio Native American monitor must be present during any testing or cataloging of those resources. Additionally, if the archaeologist does not collect the cultural resources that are unearthed during the ground disturbing activities, the Luiseiio Native American monitor, may in their discretion, collect said resources and provide them to the Tribe for respectful and dignified treatment in accordance with the Tribe's cultunil. and spiritual traditions. Currently the MND is silent in regards to "what" is to happen to those items not collected, yet documented by the project archaeologist for SCIC purposes. Therefore, it is the Tribe's recommendation that these items be given to the Tribe so that they may be repatriated at the site on a later date. B. When Suspected Native American Remains Are Unearthed. Those Remains Should Remain In Situ And Protected Until The Most Likely Descendant Can Be Determined By The Native American Heritage Commission. CUL-l (second paragraph) addresses the possibility of the discovery of Native American Human Remains. If Native American remains and/or associated burial goods are unearthed during the Project, and prior to a Most Likely Descendant being determined by the Native American Heritage Commission, it is the Tribe's request that the ancestral remains be kept in situ (in place), or in a secure location in close proximity io their discovery and that a forensic anthropologist perform their analysis of the remains on-site in the presence of a Luiseiio Native American monitor. Any transportation of the ancestral remains would be considered by the Tribe as disrespectful and undignified treatment. Therefore, the Tribe requests that in acldition to the strict adherence to the protocol stated in the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resource Code Section 5097.98, the Final MND reflect that if Native American remains are discovered, the Native American remains shall be kept in situ, or in a secure location in close proximity to where they were found, and that the analysis of the remains occur only on-site in the presence of a Luiseiio Native American monitor. SLR Comments Regarding Miles Pacific Subdivision, Carlsbad, CA Page 3 C. Only "Clean Fill" Should Be Utilized During This Project Lastly, the Tribe is opposed to any undocumented fill being used during the proposed development. In the event the "fill" will be imported into the Project area, the Tribe requests that any proposed use of fill be clean of cultural resources and documented as such. It has been a practice of many in the construction profession to utilize fill materials that contained cultural resources from other "unknown" areas .thereby contaminating the potential cultural landscape of the area being filled. This type of fill material is unacceptable. Moreover, if the fill material is to be utilized from areas within the Project boundaries, then we ask that that fill be analyzed and confirmed by an archeologist and/or Luisei'io Native American monitor that such fill material does not contain cultural resources. A requirement that fill material be absent of any and all cultural resources should therefore be included as an additional mitigation measure of the Final MND. The Tribe is aware that the Project Site contains varying levels of in-fill soil; however, the vertical depth of the fill soil is unknown and the native soil may still be intact below the fill soil. Therefore, regardless if "fill" soil had been previously utilized at the Project Site, Native American monitors must still be present during ground disturbing activities in those locations if it is determined that native soils may still be penetrated. III. CONCLUSION The San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians appreciates this opportunity to provide the City of Carlsbad with our comments and recommendations on Miles Pacific Subdivision. The Tribe hopes the City will adopt the mitigation measures for Cultural Resources as herein requested and that they will appear in the Final MND. As always, we look forward to working with the City to guarantee that the requirements of the CEQA are rigorously applied to this Project and all projects. We thank you for your continuing assistance in protecting our invaluable Luisei'io cultural resources. cc: Melvin Vernon, Tribal Captain Sincerely, Merri Lopez-Keifer Tribal Legal Counsel Carmen Mojado, Secretary of Government Relations and President of Saving Sacred Sites SLR Comments Regarding Miles Pacific Subdivision, Carlsbad, CA Page4 STATE OF CAJJFQRNIA--BPSINESS TRANSPORT ATJON AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. DISTRICT 11, DIVISION OF PLANNlNG . 4050 TAYLOR ST, M.S. 240 SAN DIEGO, CA 92110 . PHONE (619) 688-6960 FAX (619) 688-4299 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov April16, 2013 Mr. Gi-eg Fisher City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Mr. Fisher: EDMUND G BROWN Jr Goyemor Flex :Your power! Be energy efficient! 11-SD-5 PM50.68 Miles Pacific MND SCH #2013031040 The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) appreciates the opportunity to review the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed Miles Pacific project, locate~ in proximity to Interstate 5 (I-5). Caltrans has the following comments: The proposed sewer line for the referenced project is within an existing 10 foot ·easement on the adjacent property (south), 5 feet offset from Caltrans right-of-way (I{/W), and directly under Caltrans proposed 10 foot high sound wall for the I-5 North Coast Corridor (NCC) project. The placement of the underground utility sewer line within the existing easement should not interfere with Caltrans plans as part of the I-5 NCC project to construct a"soundwall at this location. To accommodate Caltrans fUture plans for the soundwall, the proposed development · should construct the utility at a depth not to interfere with Caltrans sound wall, or construct to Cal trans standards a footing to accommodate Caltrans future plans to construct a 10 foot high sound wall. Please coordinate with the I-5 NCC project. '· The. City should require the project, as part of the approved environmental document, to document that the property does not meet Carlsbad standards for exterior noise levels. Cal trans will not be held responsible for any noise impacts to this development, including from the ultimate configuration ofi-5. · We would like to set up a meeting with the CitY to discuss coordination with the I -5 NCC project. If you have any questions, please contact Leila Ibrahim of the Development Review branch at (619) 688-6802. ACOB ARMSTRONG, Branch Chief Development Review Branch "Caltrans improves mobility across Cali{oT-nia'~ ' . ' Department of Toxic Substanc53s Control Matthew Rodriquez Secretary for Environmental Protection Deborah 0. Raphael, Director 5796 Corporate Avenue Cypress, California 90630 Edmund G. Brown Jr. r::=-::-=-:-:-----, Governor CITY OF CARLSBAD April 3, 2013 Mr. Greg Fisher City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 APR 08 2011 PLANNING DEPARTMENTl ..__ _______ J NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR MILES PACIFIC SUBDIVISIONS, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, SCH # 2013031040 Dear Mr. Fisher: The Department of Toxic Sub.stances Control (DTSC) has received your submitted Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the above-mentioned project. The following project description is stated in your document: "The Project requests the adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Coastal Development Permit, and Planned Development Permit to allow the demolition of a single family residence, storage building, and green house structures, and to subdivide and grade a 5.4 acre site into seventeen (17) single-family residential lots, one private street lot, and two bio-retention basin lots." The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" Based on the review of the submitted document DTSC has the following comments: 1) The Mitigated Negative Declaration should evaluate whether conditions Within the Project area may pose a threat to human health or the environment. Following are the databases of some of the regulatory agencies: • National Priorities List (NPL): A list maintained by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA). • . EnviroStor (formerly CaiSites): A Database primarily used by the California Departme[lt of Toxic Substances Control, accessible through DTSC's website (see below). ® Printed on Recycled Paper Mr. Greg Fisher April 3, 2013 Page 2 • Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS): A database of RCRA facilities that is maintained by U.S. EPA. • Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCUS): A database of CERCLA sites that is maintained by U.S.EPA. • Solid Waste Information System (SWIS): A database provided by the California Integrated Waste Management Board which consists of both open as well as closed and inactive solid waste disposal facilities and transfer stations. • GeoTracker: A List that is maintained by Regional Water Quality Control Boards. • Local Counties and Cities maintain lists for hazardous substances cleanup sites and leaking underground storage tanks. • The United States Army Corps of Engineers, 911 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, 90017, (213) 452-3908, maintains a list of Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS). 2) The Mitigated i'Jegative Declaration should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation for any site within the proposed Project area that may be contaminated, and the government agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. If necessary, DTSC would require an oversight agreement in order to review such documents. 3) Any environmental investigati~ns, sampling and/or remediation for a sitl\, should be conducted under a Work Plan approved and overseen by a regulatory agency that has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous substance cleanup. The findings of any investigations, including any Phase I or II Environmental Site Assessment Investigations should be summarized in the document. All sampling results in which hazardous substances were found above regulatory standards should be clearly summarized in a table. All closure, certification or remediation approval reports by regulatory agencies should be included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. · 4) If buildings, other structures, asphalt or concrete-paved surface areas are being planned to be demolished, an investigation should also be conducted for the presence of other hazardous chemicals, mercury, and asbestos conta!ning materials (ACMs). If other hazardous chemicals, lead-based paints (LPB) or products, mercury or ACMs are identified, proper precautions should be taken during demolition activities. Additionally, the contaminants should be remediated in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies. Mr. Greg Fisher April 3, 2013 Page 3 5) Project construction may require soil excavation or filling in certain areas. · Sampling may be required. If soil is contaminated, it must be properly disposed and not simply placed in another location onsite. Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) may be applicable to such soils. Also, if the project proposes to import soil to backfill the areas excavated, sampling should be conducted to ensure that the imported soil is free of contamination. 6) If the project area was used for agricultural, livestock or related activities, onsite soils and groundwater might contain pesticides, agricultural chemical, organic waste or other related residue. Proper investigation, and remedial actions, if necessary, should be conducted under the oversight of and approved by a government agency at the site prior to construction of the project. 7) Human health and the environment of sensitive receptors should be protected during the field activities. If necessary, a health risk assessment overseen and approved by the appropriate government agency should be conducted by a qualified health risk assessor to determine if there are, have been, or will be, any releases of hazardous materials that may pose a risk to human health or the environment. 8) If it is determined that hazardous wastes are, or Yl'ill be, generated by the proposed operations, the wastes must be managed in accordance with the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5). If it is determined that hazardous wastes will be generated, the facility should also obtain a United States Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number by contacting (800) 618-6942. Certain hazardous waste treatment processes or hazardous materials, handling, storage or uses may require authorizatioh from the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Information about the requirement for authorization can be obtained by contacting your local CUP A. 9) DTSC can provide cleanup oversight through an Environmental Oversight Agreement (EOA) for government agencies that are not responsible parties, or a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement (VCA) for private parties. For additional information on the EOA or VCA, please see www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCieanup/Brownfields, or contact Ms. Maryam Tasnif- Abbasi, DTSC's Voluntary Cleanup Coordinator, at (714) 484-5489. Mr. Greg Fisher April 3, 2013 Page 4 If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Ms. Sue Hakim, Project Manager, at soad.hakim@dtsc.ca.gov, or by phone at (714) 484-5381. Sincerely, Sue Hakim Project Manager Brownfields and Environmental Restoration Program cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 state.clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov. CEQA# 3733 (~CITY OF ~CARLSBAD Community & Economic Development May 21,2013 Department of Transportation District 11, Division of Planning Jacob Armstrong, Branch Chief 4050 Taylor Street, M.S. 240 San Diego, CA 92110 RE: MILES PACIFIC SUBDIVISION-CT 12-01/PUD 12-08/CDP 12-15 Dear Mr. Armstrong, www.carlsbadca.gov Thank you for your written comments dated April16, 2013 regarding the City's Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Miles Pacific Subdivision project. According to your letter, you intend to construct a sound. wall within private property neither owned by Caltrans or secured with easements for Caltrans. Unless documentation can be provided otherwise showing that Caltrans has authorization to place a wall on this property, the City will continue to utilize their right to place a sewer line within an existing public sewer easement (see attached recorded easement deed Doc.#67-110843) as there are no other feasible locations for the sewer line to accommodate the proposed project. Regarding noise impacts from Interstate 5, Mitigation Measure #8 (NOS-2) contained within the MND requires that property notification in writing along with a deed disclosure must be given to all potential purchasers declaring that the property they are purchasing does not meet Carlsbad exterior noise standards for residential property. Please feel free to contact me at (760) 602-4629 or by· email at greg.fisher@carlsbadca.gov should you have any. questions GREG FISHER Assistant Planner c : Jane Mobaldi, City Attorney Don Neu, City Planner Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner Tecla Levy, Associate Engineer Rod Bradley, bHA, Inc., 5115 Avenida Encinas, Suite L, Carlsbad, CA 92008-4387 enc · Planning Division T 760-602-4600 F 760,602-8559