HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-11-04; Planning Commission; Resolution 7127
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 TO ALLOW FOR THE SUBDIVISION AND GRADING OF A
DEVELOPED 3.13 ACRE SITE INTO TEN (10) SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
LOTS AND ONE (1) PRIVATE STREET/OPEN SPACE LOT ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1833 BUENA VISTA WAY AND WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: MILES BUENA VISTA
CASE NO.: CT 14-04/PUD 14-06
WHEREAS, Robert Miles, “Owner/Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City
of Carlsbad regarding property described as
The easterly 300.00 feet of that portion of Lot 30 of Patterson’s Addition
to the Town of Carlsbad, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California, according to Map Thereof No. 565, filed in the Office
of the County Recorder of San Diego County, September 22, 1888, and
of that portion of Section 31, Township 11 South, Range 4 West, San
Bernardino Base and Meridian, in the County of San Diego, State of
California, according to United States Government survey, described as
a whole as follows:
Commencing at the intersection of the center line of Valley Street and
Oak Avenue as shown on Map No. 565; thence along the center line of
said Valley Street, north 3433’00” west 528.52 feet to the true point of
beginning; thence continuing along said center line of Valley Street,
north 3433’00” west, 657.07 feet to an intersection with the southerly
line of said section 31; thence along said southerly line north 8907’00”
west 43.31 feet to the most westerly corner of land conveyed to south
coast land company by deed dated November 1, 1923 and recorded
January 9, 1924 in Book 976, page 435 of deeds; thence along the
northwesterly line of said land conveyed land north 5413’30” east
759.75 feet to the northerly corner thereof; thence along the
northeasterly line of said land conveyed to south coast land company,
south 3529’00” east, 563.12 feet to said southerly line of section 31;
thence along said southerly line south 8907’00” east, 176.33 feet to an
intersection with the center line of Canyon Drive (formerly Canon
Street) as shown on said Map No. 565; thence along said center line
south 1926’00” east 36.81 feet, more or less which bears north
5527’00” east parallel with the centerline of said Oak Avenue form the
true point of beginning; thence along said parallel line south 5527’00”
west, 864.32 feet to the true point of beginning.
Excepting therefrom that portion lying southeasterly of a line that is
parallel with and distant 233.03 feet northwesterly measured at right
angles from the southeasterly line thereof
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7127
PC RESO NO. 7127 -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
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on November 4, 2015, hold a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any
written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad as follows:
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, 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 and subject to the following condition:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for CT 14-04/PUD 14-06 – MILES BUENA
VISTA the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and
b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City
of Carlsbad; and
c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad;
and
d. based on the EIA and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will
have a significant effect on the environment.
Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 760-602-4600 760-602-8560 fax
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT NAME: Miles Buena Vista
PROJECT NO: CT 14-04/PUD 14-06
PROJECT LOCATION: 1833 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad, California (San Diego County)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Miles Buena Vista project is proposing to subdivide a 3.13 acre (gross acreage)
site into ten (10) single-family residential lots (Lots 1-10) and one (1) private street/open space lot (Lot 11) for
a project density of 3.21 dwelling units per acre based off a net developable acreage of 3.12 acres. Residential
dwelling units are not proposed as part of the project at this time, but will include development in the future
of ten (10) single-family dwelling units on Lots 1-10 and two (2) second dwelling units on Lots 9 and 10 to satisfy
the project’s inclusionary housing requirements. The proposed residential lots range in size from 9,500 square
feet to 15,527 square feet. The proposed private street/open space lot is 26,168 square feet in size. Seven (7)
of the proposed single-family lots will access the site via Buena Vista Way, while the remaining three (3) lots
will access the site from McCauley Lane. The project includes demolition of a single-family home and garage
structure, paved access road, above ground utilities, septic tank and leach field, and several small storage
buildings and greenhouse shade structures. Project grading affects 2.80 acres of the total 3.13 acre site with
grading quantities consisting of 5,456 cubic yards of remedial (removal & recompaction), 4,970 cubic yards of
cut and 4,970 cubic yards of fill. No import or export is proposed. The project proposes a volume of grading
equal to 1,775 cubic yards per acre. The Tentative Tract Map (CT 14-04) is required to subdivide the property
into eleven (11) individual lots, and the Planned Development Permit (PUD 14-06) is required for the proposed
private street/open space Lot 11.
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 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 Mitigated 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.
AVAILABILITY: A copy of the Initial Study documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration is on file in the Planning Division, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008 and is available
online at: http://www.carlsbadca.gov/services/depts/planning/agendas.asp.
COMMENTS: 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. Written
comments regarding the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration should be directed to Jason Goff, Associate
Planner at the address listed below or via email to jason.goff@carlsbadca.gov. Comments must be received
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
Planning Commission. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If
you have any questions, please call Jason Goff in the Planning Division at (760) 602-4643.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD September 8, 2015 to October 8, 2015
PUBLISH DATE September 8, 2015
Initial Study
June 2013 -1- Initial Study
1. PROJECT NAME: Miles Buena Vista
2. PROJECT NO: CT 14-04/PUD 14-06
3. LEAD AGENCY:
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
4. PROJECT APPLICANT:
BHA, Inc.
Dale Clark
Suite L
5115 Avenida Encinas
Carlsbad, CA 92008
5. LEAD AGENCY CONTACT PERSON: Jason Goff, Associate Planner
Office Phone: (760) 602-4643
Email: jason.goff@carlsbadca.gov
6. PROJECT LOCATION: 1833 Buena Vista Way (APN 156-220-02)
7. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: RLM (Residential Low-Medium Density, 0-4 du/ac)
8. ZONING: R-1-9,500 (One-family Residential, 9,500 sq. ft. min. lot size)
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Miles Buena Vista project is proposing to subdivide a 3.13 acre (gross
acreage) site into ten (10) single-family residential lots (Lots 1-10) and one (1) private street/open
space lot (Lot 11) for a project density of 3.21 dwelling units per acre based off a net developable
acreage of 3.12 acres. Residential dwelling units are not proposed as part of the project at this time,
but will include development in the future of ten (10) single-family dwelling units on Lots 1-10 and
two (2) second dwelling units on Lots 9 and 10 to satisfy the project’s inclusionary housing
requirements. The proposed residential lots range in size from 9,500 square feet to 15,527 square
feet. The proposed private street/open space lot is 26,168 square feet in size. Seven (7) of the
proposed single-family lots will access the site via Buena Vista Way, while the remaining three (3) lots
will access the site from McCauley Lane. The project includes demolition of a single-family home and
garage structure, paved access road, above ground utilities, septic tank and leach field, and several
small storage buildings and greenhouse shade structures. Project grading affects 2.80 acres of the
total 3.13 acre site with grading quantities consisting of 5,456 cubic yards of remedial (removal &
compaction), 4,970 cubic yards of cut and 4,970 cubic yards of fill. No import or export is proposed.
The project proposes a volume of grading equal to 1,775 cubic yards per acre. The Tentative Tract
Map (CT 14-04) is required to subdivide the property into eleven (11) individual lots, and the Planned
Development Permit (PUD 14-06) is required for the proposed private street/open space Lot 11.
10. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING/SURROUNDING LAND USES: The project site consists of a
quadrilateral-shaped property located at 1833 Buena Vista Way in Carlsbad, California (San Diego
County). The project site is bounded by Buena Vista Way and existing residential development to the
north, existing residential development and McCauley Lane to the south, steeply sloping open space
and Monroe Street to the east, and existing residential development and agricultural land to the west.
Topographically, the site is generally flat-lying to very gently sloping in both the northwesterly and
northeasterly directions. The overall gradient of the site is on the order of 12:1 [horizontal:vertical]
Project Name: Miles Buena Vista
Project No: CT 14-04/PUD 14-06
June 2013 -4- Initial Study
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites 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 (e.g., the project falls outside a fault
rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors
as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based
on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with
mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial
evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact"
entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Negative Declaration: Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a
"Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier
Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D).
In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify 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 Measures
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.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
Project Name: Miles Buena Vista
Project No: CT 14-04/PUD 14-06
June 2013 -5- Initial Study
I. AESTHETICS
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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-c) No Impact. The property is bounded by Buena Vista Way and existing residential development to the
north, existing residential development and McCauley Lane to the south, steeply sloping open space
and Monroe Street to the east, and existing residential development and agricultural land to the west.
There are no public scenic vistas available from the site or across the site. No trees or rock
outcroppings exist on site or 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 view shed 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) No Impact. The proposed single-family residential use is consistent with the surrounding single-family
residential uses and will be designed such that it does not contribute a significant amount of light or
glare. No impact is assessed.
II. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES *
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to
non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a) No Impact. According to the California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program, Important Farmland in California (2010), the project site is identified as “Urban
and Built-up Land.” Therefore, the project does not covert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance. No impact is assessed.
Project Name: Miles Buena Vista
Project No: CT 14-04/PUD 14-06
June 2013 -6- Initial Study
b) No Impact. The project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of Residential Low-Medium
Density (RLM), which anticipates low to medium density residential development from 0 to 4 dwelling
units per acre (du/ac) with a Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) of 3.2 du/ac. The project
proposes single-family residential at a density of 3.21 dwelling units per acre consistent with the
General Plan and GMCP. Furthermore, the subject site is not encumbered by a Williamson Act
contract. No impact is assessed.
c) No Impact. The subject property is an infill site currently developed with one single-family residence
consistent with the RLM General Plan land use designation. The property is also being utilized as a
wholesale nursery. The site is substantially surrounded by existing single-family development
consistent with the RLM designation. No changes proposed by the project would impact other farms
or result in additional farmland conversion in the area as none are adjacent. No impact is assessed.
III. AIR QUALITY*
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
* 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.
a) No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is currently designated as a
nonattainment area for the state standard for PM10, PM2.5, 1-Hour and 8-Hour ozone, and the Federal
8-Hour Standard for ozone. 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). The RAQS outlines the APCD’s plans and regulatory control measures
designed to attain state air quality standards for ozone. The RAQS, which was initially adopted in
1991, is updated on a triennial basis with the most recent update occurring in April 2009.
The APCD has also developed the SDAB’s input into the State Implementation Plan (SIP) which is
required under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) for pollutants that are designated as being in
nonattainment of national air quality standards for the air basin. The SIP relies on the same
information from SANDAG to develop emission inventories and emission control strategies that are
included in the attainment demonstration for the air basin.
Project Name: Miles Buena Vista
Project No: CT 14-04/PUD 14-06
June 2013 -7- Initial Study
The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions
that are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based
on each city’s and the County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable
General Plan, then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning
process. Such consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air
quality impact. As discussed under Land Use & Planning, Section X below, the proposed subdivision
for future single-family residential development is consistent with the General Plan; therefore, 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 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 stations to the project site are at
Camp Pendleton and Escondido (E. Valley Parkway). Data available for these monitoring sites from
2009 through 2011, indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were as follows: the
1-Hour ozone concentration did not exceed the state standard any time during the years 2009 through
2011; the 8-Hour ozone concentration exceeded both the state and federal standard in 2009 and 2010
and the state standard was exceeded twice in 2011; the daily PM10 concentration exceeded the state
standard in 2009, but not in 2010 or 2011; and the federal standard for PM10 and the federal 24-Hour
PM2.5 standard was not exceeded during the 2009 through 2011 time period. No other violations of
any air quality standards have been recorded during the years 2009 through 2011.
The project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and construction.
Such emissions would be minimized through standard construction measures and Best Management
Practices (BMPs) that would reduce fugitive dust emissions and other criteria pollutant emissions
during construction. 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.
Project Name: Miles Buena Vista
Project No: CT 14-04/PUD 14-06
June 2013 -8- Initial Study
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.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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) 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.
Project Name: Miles Buena Vista
Project No: CT 14-04/PUD 14-06
June 2013 -9- Initial Study
The 3.13-acre property is extensively developed with an existing single-family home, garage and
associated landscaped areas, as well as several storage buildings, gravel covered horticultural growing
areas with shade structures overhead and a long paved driveway. The property is surrounded by
existing single-family homes to the north and south, an existing single-family home and horticultural
growing areas to the west; and a eucalyptus grove and Monroe Street to the east. According to the
HMP, the site is identified as a Development Area, is not located adjacent to any Standards Areas or
Existing or Proposed Hardline Preserve Areas; and is not located within or near a HMP core, linkage
or special resource area.
A Biologic Resource Survey was prepared by Marquez & Associates, Biological Consultant dated
November 19, 2014 to provide a site specific evaluation of the biological resources on the project site.
According to the report, the entire site is considered developed with no native plant species, except
for three (3) lemonade berry and two (2) laurel sumac bushes located on the periphery of the site
surrounded by jade plant and the adjacent eucalyptus grove offsite to the east. According to the
report “the few native plants existing on-site are not sufficient to constitute habitat.” These plants
will remain undisturbed along the edge of proposed open space Lot 11. Furthermore, the report
indicates that the site is not expected to support any sensitive plant species nor be utilized by sensitive
animal species; the site is not within or near a HMP core, linkage or special resource area; and no
raptor nest were identified within the adjacent eucalyptus trees to the east. No mitigation is required
for impacts to developed/paved areas. Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant.
b-f) No Impact. The above Biological Resources Survey 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
discussed above, the project will not conflict with the HMP. No impact is assessed.
V. CULTURAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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 significance of an
archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
a, b and d) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A Cultural Resources Study was prepared
for the site by ASM Affiliates on September 3, 2014. The study was conducted in accordance with the
CEQA Section 15064.5 to determine the presence or absence of potentially significant prehistoric and
historic resources within project’s area of potential effects (APE). This consisted of a review of all
relevant site records and reports on file with the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) of the
California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at San Diego State University with a ½-mile
search radius, an intensive pedestrian survey of the APE on August 26, 2014, and review of the Sacred
Lands Files held by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC).
Project Name: Miles Buena Vista
Project No: CT 14-04/PUD 14-06
June 2013 -10- Initial Study
The results of the SCIC records search indicate no cultural resources or historic addresses have been
previously recorded or located within the APE. The archeologic field survey of the site found it highly
disturbed with most of the property developed; no cultural resources were identified. A NAHC
records search was conducted on August 13, 2014; and on September 15, 2014 the NAHC responded
that the sacred lands file had failed to indicate the presence of any Native American cultural resources
within the immediate project area.
Additionally, in accordance with Assembly Bill 52, the City of Carlsbad requested consultation with the
San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians and the Soboba Tribe of Luiseno Indians on July 1, 2015. Of
those listed, the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians consulted with the City of Carlsbad in a meeting
held on July 9, 2015 and also through email and telephone correspondence. No additional unknown
cultural information regarding the APE was provided during the meeting nor through any later
correspondence. However, a request for a formal pre-excavation agreement, otherwise known as a
Cultural Resources Treatment and Tribal Monitoring Agreement, with the San Luis Rey Band of
Mission Indians was requested in addition to required archeological monitoring so as to specifically
address any cultural resources that may be found given the Band’s traditional territory.
Although the current investigation by ASM did not identify any significant resources within the APE,
it did indicate that past results of the archeological records searches and cultural resources studies
within the ½-mile radius indicate that there is a potential for buried cultural resource deposits within
the area. Therefore, in accordance with the CEQA Section 15064.5(f), which requires provisions for
the identification and evaluation of accidentally discovered archeological resources; mitigation
measures have been added to the project requiring archaeological monitoring by both a qualified
archaeologist and Luiseño Native American monitor(s) of the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians
during ground-disturbing activities. Through implementation of the mitigation measures
recommended in the ASM report, along with the requirements of tribal monitoring and a formal pre-
excavation agreement with the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, impacts to any unforeseen or
accidentally discovered cultural resources are reduced to a level of less than significant.
c) No Impact. A Paleontological Resources Assessment was prepared for the project site by the
Department of PaleoServices, San Diego Natural History Museum, dated February 24, 2105. Both an
institutional records search and field survey of the site were conducted. The assessment determined
that because of the weathered and oxidized nature of the Bay Point Formation strata at the project
site, the lack of know fossil resources in the these strata within 1-mile of the project site, and the
relatively shallow depth of proposed excavations, the project will not impact paleontological
resources and no paleontological mitigation is being recommended. No impact is assessed.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Project Name: Miles Buena Vista
Project No: CT 14-04/PUD 14-06
June 2013 -11- Initial Study
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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.iii.) Less than Significant Impact. A Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation of the project site was
prepared by GeoSoils, Inc. (dated March 17, 2014) to provide subsurface information and
geotechnical recommendations specific to the proposed residential subdivision. An addendum to the
geotechnical evaluation was later prepared dated March 18, 2015. According to the report(s) 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 that could affect Carlsbad, the closest of which is the offshore
segment of the Newport-Inglewood Fault, which is located at a distance of approximately 5.8 miles to
the west. 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 all project related geotechnical
recommendations identified in the preliminary geotechnical evaluation be incorporated into the
design of the project. According to the preliminary geotechnical evaluation, the site geologic units
encountered during the subsurface investigation and site reconnaissance included small, localized
areas of undocumented artificial fill, localized Quaternary-age colluvium (topsoil), Quaternary-age old
paralic deposits (weathered and unweathered), and Tertiary-age Santiago Formation. 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 older paralic deposits that underlie
the site in the near-surface and the depth of the regional water table. Furthermore, the
Project Name: Miles Buena Vista
Project No: CT 14-04/PUD 14-06
June 2013 -12- Initial Study
recommendations for remedial earthwork 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 preliminary geotechnical
evaluation, the potential for the project to be affected by significant seismic densification or
liquefaction of offsite soils is low and thus reduces impacts to less than significant. Additionally, the
preliminary geotechnical evaluation also considered other geologic/seismic related hazards, such as
subsidence, dynamic settlement, surface fault rupture, ground lurching or shallow ground rupture,
tsunami and seiche. The evaluation found that these hazards are considered negligible and/or
mitigated as a result of site location, soil characteristics and typical site development procedures. By
following the recommendations contained within the referenced geotechnical evaluation, the
proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical engineering and geologic viewpoint and
exposure of people or structures to geotechnical related hazards is considered less than significant.
a.iv.) Less than Significant Impact. The above noted preliminary geotechnical evaluation included a slope
stability analyses for the offsite easterly-facing slope, descending from the project site to Monroe
Street below. The analyses indicates the subject slope has an inadequate gross Factor-of-Safety (FOS)
to a point located approximately ±23.8 feet from the top of the slope. According to the report,
improvements constructed within this zone have the potential to be adversely affected by deep-
seated slope failures. In addition, the analyses indicates that the steeper portions of the offsite slope
(i.e., slope gradients greater than 2:1) have a surficial FOS of less than 1.5. While GeoSoils Inc. did not
observe any geomorphic expressions indicative of significant past mass wasting events or encounter
any landslide debris or adverse geologic structures during their field investigations; recommendations
listed in their evaluation include either stabilization of the slope or use of structural setbacks. Given
the easterly-facing slope is an offsite condition, structural setbacks have been introduced as a project
design feature to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The area discussed in the preliminary
geotechnical evaluation as being encumbered by a FOS of less than 1.5, has been identified and placed
within an open space easement within proposed Lot 11 outside of the proposed private road and
residential lots. Therefore, all structures, including the private road will be located outside of and
beyond the area of development containing a FOS of less than 1.5, thus reducing impacts to less than
significant. By following the recommendations contained within the referenced geotechnical
evaluation combined with the project design features shown on the plans, the proposed development
is feasible from a geotechnical engineering and geologic viewpoint and exposure of people or
structures to geotechnical related hazards such as landslides or slope failure is considered to be less
than significant.
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 straw 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) Less than Significant Impact. See above response in Sections a.i. through a.iv.
d) Less than Significant Impact. According to the preliminary geotechnical evaluation prepared for the
project by GeoSoils Inc., laboratory testing indicates that the expansion indices of the representative
Project Name: Miles Buena Vista
Project No: CT 14-04/PUD 14-06
June 2013 -13- Initial Study
samples of onsite earth materials are less than 5, which correlates to a very low expansion potential.
By following the recommendations contained within the referenced geotechnical evaluation, the
proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical engineering and geologic viewpoint and
substantial risk to life or property resulting from expansive soils is considered less than significant.
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. No impact is assessed.
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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., October 13, 2014, the proposed project
is expected to generate a total of 267.72 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions (CO2e).
Of this, automobile trips would represent 200.64 metric tons of CO2e emissions; energy consumption
would represent 61.99 metric tons of CO2e emissions; and project related construction emissions
would represent 5.08 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 (267.72 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.
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the environment?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Project Name: Miles Buena Vista
Project No: CT 14-04/PUD 14-06
June 2013 -14- Initial Study
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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-b) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and
Limited Phase II Soil Evaluation was prepared for the project property by GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI), dated
May 20, 2014. An addendum was later prepared by GSI on February 20, 2015. At the time of the
reports, the property was presently being utilized as a wholesale nursery. Structures on the property
included greenhouses, a residence and garage, storage buildings and several small sheds (one of
which was used for pesticide storage). No evidence of spills or release of hazardous chemicals or
materials in the form of stained soil or significant odor was readily observed. However, based on the
use of the subject site as a wholesale nursery, GSI performed a limited soil screening evaluation to
determine if soil had been impacted by agricultural residues. Organochlorine pesticide testing was
performed in accordance with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) method 8081A.
Concentrations of DDE, DDT, Chlordane, Dieldren, Heptachlor Epoxide and Toxaphene were detected;
however, the detected concentrations of DDE, DDT, Dieldrin and Toxaphen did not exceed the
California Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSLs) developed by the California Environmental
Protections Agency (CEPA, 2005), so as not to represent a risk to human health; and Heptachlor
Epoxide did not exceed the Regional Screening Levels as set forth by the US Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA). In contrast, Chlordane was detected in shallow soils (upper 8 inches to 1 foot) that
exceed the CHHSLs and may possibly represent a risk to human health if not mitigated. As such, GSI
recommends that 1) the site be entered into the County of San Diego Department of Environmental
Health (DEH) Site Assessment and Mitigation (SAM) Voluntary Assistance Program (VAP) for oversight
of soil mitigation; and 2) removal and reburial of affected soils be in accordance with San Diego VAP
guidelines. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce any potential impacts to a less than
significant level.
Project Name: Miles Buena Vista
Project No: CT 14-04/PUD 14-06
June 2013 -15- Initial Study
The GSI evaluations also indicates that the existing residential structure and garage (former barn) may
contain Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs) and Lead-Based Paints (LBPs) based on their age. A
mitigation measure shall be incorporated requiring ACM and LBP surveys be performed onsite by a
licensed asbestos/lead consultant prior to demolition of the existing structures onsite. A phase
converter mounted on a concrete pad within an electrical shed near the center of the property was
also observed leaking a minor amount of oil. Soil around the slab was not stained and given the install
date of 1991, the oil is unlikely to contain PCPs. However, the report recommends care in handling
the equipment during removal, and if stained soil is observed during grading in the vicinity of the
equipment, the soil should be disposed of in accordance with applicable state and federal regulations.
Additionally, 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 and the added mitigation measures, 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.
c) No Impact. The project site is not located within one-quarter mile of any proposed or existing school.
Therefore, no impact is assessed.
d) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. According to the to the “Phase I Environmental
Site Assessment and Limited Phase II Soil Evaluation” prepared by GSI and dated February 20, 2015,
and addendum dated February 20, 2015, the subject site is not included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5; however, it does appear on
a separate Historic Underground Storage Tank (Hist UST) database and County of San Diego Hazardous
Material Mitigation Division (HMMD) database.
According to the Hist UST database, a 500-gallon Underground Storage Tank (UST) containing
unleaded fuel was identified as being historically present at the site with no information regarding its
official removal. Interviews with the property owner revealed that the UST was installed in the early
1970’s and subsequently removed approximately one year after installation. GSI conducted a limited
soil evaluation for the former UST. The soil analytical results indicated that the total petroleum
hydrocarbons, extended range, benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, total xylenes (BTEX), and fuel
oxygenates methyl tertiary-butyl ether, disopropyl ether, tertiary amyl-methyl ether, and tertiary
Project Name: Miles Buena Vista
Project No: CT 14-04/PUD 14-06
June 2013 -16- Initial Study
butyl alcohol were not detected above laboratory reporting limits. Although soil analytical results
indicate that the reported location of the former UST has not been affected by petroleum
hydrocarbons, GSI recommended that should any UST be discovered during redevelopment activities,
its removal shall be handled under the oversight of the County of San Diego Department of
Environmental Health (DEH). Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce any potential
impacts to a less than significant level.
According to the HMMD database, the subject site has reportedly had a permit to handle hazardous
materials in the past, which expired in 2000. However, according to the GIS reports, the facility was
reportedly last inspected in 2011, and appears to have operated in a lawful manner. Through
implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in above sections a-b and 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 less than significant.
e) No Impact. The subject site is located approximately 4.3 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 wholesale nursery located along
the south side of Buena Vista Way and east side of McCauley Lane. 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.
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Project Name: Miles Buena Vista
Project No: CT 14-04/PUD 14-06
June 2013 -17- Initial Study
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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 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 Name: Miles Buena Vista
Project No: CT 14-04/PUD 14-06
June 2013 -18- Initial Study
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 Drainage Study and a Preliminary
Storm Water Management Plan dated March 3, 2015, were prepared for the Miles Buena Vista 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 bio-retention basins (Basins 1-10). The implementation of the LID
design features will mitigate the potential impacts that the development can have on storm water.
The project will not significantly deplete groundwater supplies or quality. Therefore, impacts are
considered to be less than significant.
c-f) Less than Significant Impact. The Preliminary Drainage Study and Preliminary Storm Water
Management Plan (March 3, 2015) for the 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 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 storm water drainage
systems.
The above reports indicate 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 above sections, 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. 06073C0762G, 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 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.
Project Name: Miles Buena Vista
Project No: CT 14-04/PUD 14-06
June 2013 -19- Initial Study
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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 into ten (10) residential lots and one (1) private
street/open space lot for the future construction of ten (10) detached single-family dwelling units and
two (2) second 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 the City of Carlsbad General
Plan Land Use designation for the site, which is identified as RLM (Residential Low-Medium Density).
RLM anticipates single-family dwellings at 0 to 4 dwelling units per acre with a Growth Management
Control Point (GMCP) of 3.2 dwelling units per acre. The project is constructing at a density of 3.21
dwelling units per acre, which is within the RLM density range and consistent with the GMCP. No
impact is assessed.
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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. Carlsbad is devoid of non-renewable energy resources. Mineral resources within the City
are no longer being utilized and extracted as exploitable natural resources. Therefore, no mineral
resource impacts will occur as a result of any project.
Project Name: Miles Buena Vista
Project No: CT 14-04/PUD 14-06
June 2013 -20- Initial Study
XII. NOISE
Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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) No Impact. The project will not result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess
of standards established in the General Plan or the City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual. The
proposed project is located outside the 60 dB(A) CNEL noise contour as indicated in the City of
Carlsbad’s General Plan Noise Element and Noise Guidelines Manual (Carlsbad Future Noise Exposure
Contours Map, forecast year 2010), and is outside the 60 dB(A) CNEL noise contour as indicated in
Exhibit III-1 of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). No impact is
assessed.
b, d) Less than Significant Impact. The anticipated grading operations associated with the proposed
single-family lots will result in a temporary and minor increase in groundborne vibration and ambient
noise levels. Following the completion of grading, ambient noise level and vibrations are expected to
return to pre-existing levels. Therefore, impacts are considered to be less than significant.
c) No Impact. The project consists of ten (10) single-family residential 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 is assessed.
e) No Impact. The subject site is located approximately 4.3 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 the Traffic Pattern Zone or noise contour lines, it is concluded that subdividing the site
into ten (10) single-family residential 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.
Project Name: Miles Buena Vista
Project No: CT 14-04/PUD 14-06
June 2013 -21- Initial Study
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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 future development of ten (10) single-family residential
dwelling units and two (2) second dwelling units, which is consistent with the intensity of the
surrounding land uses. The properties 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 residential development
(3.21 du/ac) is consistent with the City of Carlsbad General Plan and Growth Management Plan. One
(1) single-family home will be demolished; however, it is owned by Robert Miles of the Robert Miles
Living Trust, who is also the developer of the project. Therefore, the project will not displace
substantial numbers of existing housing or people. Therefore, no impact is assessed.
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need
for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
i. Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
ii. Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iii. Schools? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iv. Parks? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
v. Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a.i-a.v) No Impact. The project will allow for the future development of ten (10) single-family residential
dwelling units and two (2) second dwelling units, which 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
Project Name: Miles Buena Vista
Project No: CT 14-04/PUD 14-06
June 2013 -22- Initial Study
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.
XV. RECREATION Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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 will allow for the future development of ten (10) single-family residential
dwelling units and two (2) second dwelling units, which will not result in the deterioration of existing
neighborhoods 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.
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Project Name: Miles Buena Vista
Project No: CT 14-04/PUD 14-06
June 2013 -23- Initial Study
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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 10 lot single-family residential subdivision with minimum 9,500 sq.
ft. lots will generate 100 Average Daily Trips (ADT), a net increase of 80 ADT over the existing single-
family residential and nursery use. Once constructed, traffic from this project will primarily utilize
Carlsbad Village Drive. While the increase in traffic from the project may be slightly noticeable, the
street system is designed and sized to accommodate traffic from this project along with cumulative
development within the City of Carlsbad. The proposed project will not cause an increase in traffic
that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. Therefore,
impacts from the proposed project are considered to be less than significant.
b) No Impact. In 2009 the congestion management agency (SANDAG) employed an “opt out” option
defined in Assembly Bill (AB) 2419. The congestion management program is no longer relevant to
development in the City of Carlsbad.
c) No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. It would not, therefore,
result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact is assessed.
d) No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards;
and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s
General Plan and Zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No
impact is assessed.
e) No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the
Fire and Police Departments. No impact is assessed.
f) No Impact. The project is not served by, nor is it located within an area conducive to public
transportation. No impact is assessed.
Project Name: Miles Buena Vista
Project No: CT 14-04/PUD 14-06
June 2013 -24- Initial Study
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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 (3.21 dwelling units per net
acre) is equal to that which was 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 is assessed.
Project Name: Miles Buena Vista
Project No: CT 14-04/PUD 14-06
June 2013 -25- Initial Study
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mit. Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 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? (“Cumulatively considerable” means
that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects?)
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The subject site does not support any protected
or sensitive biological resources or habitat types; it does not contain any fish or wildlife species; and
is not identified by any habitat conservation plan as containing a protected, rare or endangered plant
or animal species. However, the project’s required mitigation as outlined in the Cultural Resources
section will preclude any elimination of important examples of major periods of California history or
prehistory, thus reducing impacts to less than significant. Therefore, the project will not reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species; will not threaten to eliminate or reduce the number of endangered
plant and animal species; and will not result in the elimination of any important examples of California
history or prehistory.
b) Less than Significant. 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 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 significantly 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, air quality would essentially be the same whether or not the development is
constructed.
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) No Impact. Based upon the residential nature of the project and that future development of the site
will comply with city standards, the project will not result in any direct or indirect substantial adverse
environmental effects on human beings. No impact assessed.
Project Name: Miles Buena Vista
Project No: CT 14-04/PUD 14-06
June 2013 -26- Initial Study
XIX. LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES:
CUL-1 – The following archeological resource mitigation measures shall be implemented:
a) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and commencement of any ground disturbing activities,
the project developer shall retain the services of a qualified archaeologist to monitor ground-
disturbing activities. The applicant shall provide written verification that a qualified
archaeologist has been retained to implement the monitoring program. The verification shall
be presented in a letter from the project archaeologist to the lead agency.
b) The qualified archaeologist shall attend a preconstruction meeting to consult with grading
and excavation contractors concerning excavation schedules and safety issues; and to further
explain and coordinate the requirements of the monitoring program.
c) 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.
d) 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 archeologist. 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 find 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
and submitted to the satisfaction of the lead agency prior to issuance of any building permits
for the development of the future homes. 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 (pursuant
to Mitigation Measure CUL-2).
e) 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.
Project Name: Miles Buena Vista
Project No: CT 14-04/PUD 14-06
June 2013 -27- Initial Study
CUL-2 – The following cultural resource mitigation measures shall be implemented:
a) Prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activities, the project developer shall
enter into a Pre-Excavation Agreement, otherwise known as a Cultural Resources Treatment
and Tribal Monitoring Agreement, with the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians. This
agreement will contain provisions to address the proper treatment of any cultural
resources or Luiseño Native American human remains inadvertently uncovered during
the course of the project. The agreement will outline the roles and powers of the Luiseño
Native American monitors and the archaeologist.
b) Any and all uncovered artifacts of Luiseño Native American cultural importance should be
returned to the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, and/or the Most Likely Descendant, if
applicable, and not be curated.
c) Native American monitors and archaeological monitors shall have joint authority to
temporarily divert and/or halt construction activities. If cultural resources are discovered
during construction, all earth moving activity within and around the immediate discovery
area must be diverted until the Luiseño Native American monitor and the archaeologist can
assess the nature and significance of the find.
d) The Luiseño Native American monitor shall be present at the project’s preconstruction
meeting to consult with grading and excavation contractors concerning excavation
schedules and safety issues, as well as consult with the principal archaeologist concerning
the proposed archaeologist techniques and/or strategies for the project.
e) If a significant cultural resource(s) and/or unique archaeological resource(s) are
unearthed during ground disturbing activities for this project, the San Luis Rey Band of
Mission Indians shall be notified and consulted regarding the respectful and dignified
treatment of those resources. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section
21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological and
cultural resources. If however, the Applicant is able to demonstrate that avoidance of a
significant and/or unique cultural resources is infeasible and a data recovery plan is
authorized by the City of Carlsbad as the lead agency, the San Luis Rey Band of Mission
Indians shall be consulted regarding the drafting and finalization of any such recovery plan.
f) When cultural resources are discovered during the project, if the archaeologist collects
such resources, a Luiseño Native American monitor must be present during any testing or
cataloging of those resources. If the archaeologist does not collect the cultural resources
that are unearthed during the ground disturbing activities, the Luiseño Native American
monitor, may in their discretion, collect said resources and provide them to the tribe and
respectful and dignified treatment in accordance with the San Luis Rey Band of Mission
Indians cultural and spiritual traditions.
g) If suspected Native American human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety
Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the San Diego County
Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance
until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. Suspected Native
American remains shall be examined in the field and kept in a secure location at the site. A
Luiseño Native American monitor shall be present during the analysis of the remains. If the
San Diego County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be contacted within 24 hours. The NAHC must
Project Name: Miles Buena Vista
Project No: CT 14-04/PUD 14-06
June 2013 -28- Initial Study
then immediately notify the “Most Likely Descendant” of receiving notification of the
discovery. The Most Likely Descendant shall then make recommendations within 48 hours,
and engage in consultation concerning treatment of remains as provided in Public Resources
Code 5097.98.
h) In the event that fill is imported into the project area, the fill shall be clean of cultural
resources and documented as such. If fill material is to be utilized and/or exported from
areas within the project site, then that fill shall be analyzed and confirmed by an archeologist
and Luiseño Native American monitor that such fill material does not contain cultural
resources.
HAZ-1 – Based on the presence of organochlorine pesticides in the onsite soils, an application shall be
entered into the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health (DEH), Site Assessment &
Mitigation (SAM) Voluntary Assistance Program (VAP) for oversight of soils mitigation. Any removal and/or
reburial of affected soils shall be in accordance with San Diego VAP guidelines. Prior to issuance of a grading
permit, evidence of completion of the above said program shall be submitted to the Planning Division to the
satisfaction of the City Planner.
HAZ-2 – Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the existing structures onsite, an asbestos
containing materials (ACM) and lead containing paint (LCP) survey shall be performed on the site by a
licensed asbestos/lead consultant. If ACM and/or LCP are found to be present, the materials shall be
disposed of by a licensed professional. Evidence of the work performed shall be submitted to the City of
Carlsbad prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
HAZ-3 – Although the soil analytical results indicated that the reported location of the former underground
storage tank (UST) has not been affected by petroleum hydrocarbons, should any UST be discovered during
redevelopment activities, grading operations shall be immediately halted and the find reported to the
County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health for proper handling and oversight in its removal.
HAZ-4 – Care shall be taken in handling the removal of the phase convertor electrical equipment during
construction activities. If any stained soil is observed during grading and redevelopment activities at this
location, the soil shall be disposed of in accordance with all applicable state and federal regulations.
HAZ-5 – All trash, debris, and waste materials within the project site shall be disposed of offsite, in
accordance with current local, state, and federal disposal regulations. Any buried trash/debris encountered
shall be evaluated by an experienced environmental consultant prior to removal.
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.
Project Name: Miles Buena Vista
Project No: CT 14-04/PUD 14-06
June 2013 -29- Initial Study
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, as updated.
3. City of Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC), Title 21 Zoning, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, as updated.
4. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad (HMP), City of Carlsbad
Planning Division, final approval dated November 2004.
5. San Diego Regional Airport Authority/San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission. McClellan-
Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). Amended December 1, 2011.
6. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection, Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program,
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/statewide/2010/fmmp2010_20_23.pdf
7. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Residential Subdivision, 1833 Buena Vista Way,
Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, GeoSoils, Inc., March 17, 2014. (W.O. 6637-A-SC)
8. Addendum to Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Residential Subdivision, 1833 Buena
Vista Way, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, GeoSoils, Inc., March 18, 2014. (W.O. 6637-A-SC)
9. Miles Buena Vista Property Biological Technical Letter Report, Marquez & Associates, Biological
Consultants, November 19, 2014.
10. Cultural Resources Study for the Property at 1833 Buena Vista Way, San Diego County, California, ASM
Affiliates, September 3, 2014.
11. Abbreviated Technical Report, Paleontological Resources Assessment, Miles Buena Vista, City of
Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, PaleoServices, San Diego Natural History Museum, February
24, 2015.
12. Greenhouse Gas Assessment, Miles Tentative Map, 1833 Buena Vista Residential Development,
Carlsbad, CA, Ldn Consultants, October 13, 2014.
13. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Limited Phase II Soil Evaluation, APN 156-220-02-00, 1833
Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, GeoSoils, Inc., May 20, 2014. (W.O. E6637-
SC)
14. Update and Addendum to “Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Limited Phase II Soil Evaluation,
APN 156-220-02-00, 1833 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, 92008,” W.O.
E6637-SC dated May 20, 2014 by GeoSoils, Inc. GeoSoils, Inc., February 20, 2015 (W.O. E6637.1-SC)
15. Drainage Study, CT 14-04/PUD 14-06, Miles Buena Vista, 1833 Buena Vista Way, City of Carlsbad, BHA,
Inc. dated August 14, 2014 and revised March 3, 2015. (W.O. 901-1289-400 MM)
16. Priority Development Project Storm Water Management Plan for CT 14-04/PUD 14-06, Miles Buena
Vista, 1833 Buena Vista Way, BHA, Inc. dated August 14, 2014 and revised March 3, 2015. (W.O. 901-
1289-400)
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.
Legend
PLN Planning Division
ENG Land Development Engineering Division
BLDG Building Division
Page 1 of 6
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
PROJECT NAME: Miles Buena Vista
PROJECT NO: CT 14-04/PUD 14-06
APPROVAL DATE/RESOULTION NUMBER(S):
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 CUL-1 The following archaeological resource mitigation measures shall be
implemented:
a. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and commencement of any
ground disturbing activities, the project developer shall retain the
services of a qualified archaeologist to monitor ground-disturbing
activities. The applicant shall provide written verification that a
qualified archaeologist has been retained to implement the monitoring
program. The verification shall be presented in a letter from the project
archaeologist to the lead agency.
b. The qualified archaeologist shall attend a preconstruction meeting to
consult with grading and excavation contractors concerning excavation
schedules and safety issues; and to further explain and coordinate the
requirements of the monitoring program.
c. 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.
Prior to issuance of
grading permit/on-
going
PLN/ENG n/a
PROJECT NAME: Miles Buena Vista
PROJECT NUMBER: CT 14-04/PUD 14-06
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 2 of 6
MITIGATION MEASURE Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks d. 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 archeologist. 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 find
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 and submitted to the satisfaction of the lead
agency prior to issuance of any building permits for the development of
the future homes. 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 (pursuant to Mitigation Measure CUL-2).
e. 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;
PROJECT NAME: Miles Buena Vista
PROJECT NUMBER: CT 14-04/PUD 14-06
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 3 of 6
MITIGATION MEASURE Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks 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 The following cultural resource mitigation measures shall be implemented:
a. Prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activities, the
project developer shall enter into a Pre-Excavation Agreement,
otherwise known as a Cultural Resources Treatment and Tribal
Monitoring Agreement, with the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians.
This agreement will contain provisions to address the proper
treatment of any cultural resources or Luiseño Native American
human remains inadvertently uncovered during the course of the
project. The agreement will outline the roles and powers of the
Luiseño Native American monitors and the archaeologist.
b. Any and all uncovered artifacts of Luiseño Native American cultural
importance should be returned to the San Luis Rey Band of Mission
Indians, and/or the Most Likely Descendant, if applicable, and not be
curated.
c. Native American monitors and archaeological monitors shall have joint
authority to temporarily divert and/or halt construction activities. If
cultural resources are discovered during construction, all earth moving
activity within and around the immediate discovery area must be
Prior to issuance of
grading permit/on-
going.
PLN/ENG n/a
PROJECT NAME: Miles Buena Vista
PROJECT NUMBER: CT 14-04/PUD 14-06
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 4 of 6
MITIGATION MEASURE Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks diverted until the Luiseño Native American monitor and the
archaeologist can assess the nature and significance of the find.
d. The Luiseño Native American monitor shall be present at the project’s
preconstruction meeting to consult with grading and excavation
contractors concerning excavation schedules and safety issues, as well
as consult with the principal archaeologist concerning the proposed
archaeologist techniques and/or strategies for the project.
e. If a significant cultural resource(s) and/or unique archaeological
resource(s) are unearthed during ground disturbing activities for this
project, the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians shall be notified and
consulted regarding the respectful and dignified treatment of those
resources. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section
21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for
archaeological and cultural resources. If however, the Applicant is able
to demonstrate that avoidance of a significant and/or unique cultural
resources is infeasible and a data recovery plan is authorized by the
City of Carlsbad as the lead agency, the San Luis Rey Band of Mission
Indians shall be consulted regarding the drafting and finalization of
any such recovery plan.
f. When cultural resources are discovered during the project, if the
archaeologist collects such resources, a Luiseño Native American
monitor must be present during any testing or cataloging of those
resources. If the archaeologist does not collect the cultural resources
that are unearthed during the ground disturbing activities, the Luiseño
Native American monitor, may in their discretion, collect said
resources and provide them to the tribe and respectful and dignified
treatment in accordance with the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians
cultural and spiritual traditions.
g. If suspected Native American human remains are encountered,
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further
PROJECT NAME: Miles Buena Vista
PROJECT NUMBER: CT 14-04/PUD 14-06
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 5 of 6
MITIGATION MEASURE Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks disturbance shall occur until the San Diego County Coroner has made
the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place
and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and
disposition has been made. Suspected Native American remains shall
be examined in the field and kept in a secure location at the site. A
Luiseño Native American monitor shall be present during the analysis
of the remains. If the San Diego County Coroner determines the
remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC) must be contacted within 24 hours. The NAHC
must then immediately notify the “Most Likely Descendant” of
receiving notification of the discovery. The Most Likely Descendant
shall then make recommendations within 48 hours, and engage in
consultation concerning treatment of remains as provided in Public
Resources Code 5097.98.
h. In the event that fill is imported into the project area, the fill shall be
clean of cultural resources and documented as such. If fill material is
to be utilized and/or exported from areas within the project site, then
that fill shall be analyzed and confirmed by an archeologist and
Luiseño Native American monitor that such fill material does not
contain cultural resources.
HAZ-1 Based on the presence of organochlorine pesticides in the onsite soils, an
application shall be entered into the County of San Diego Department of
Environmental Health (DEH), Site Assessment & Mitigation (SAM) Voluntary
Assistance Program (VAP) for oversight of soils mitigation. Any removal
and/or reburial of affected soils shall be in accordance with San Diego VAP
guidelines. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, evidence of completion of
the above said program shall be submitted to the Planning Division to the
satisfaction of the City Planner.
Prior to issuance of
grading permit.
PLN/ENG n/a
PROJECT NAME: Miles Buena Vista
PROJECT NUMBER: CT 14-04/PUD 14-06
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 6 of 6
MITIGATION MEASURE Monitoring Type Monitoring Department Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks HAZ-2 Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the existing structures
onsite, an asbestos containing materials (ACM) and lead containing paint
(LCP) survey shall be performed on the site by a licensed asbestos/lead
consultant. If ACM and/or LCP are found to be present, the materials shall
be disposed of by a licensed professional.
Prior to issuance of
a demolition
permit.
PLN/ENG n/a
Evidence of the work performed shall be submitted to the City of Carlsbad
prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Prior to issuance of
a grading permit.
PLN/ENG n/a
HAZ-3 Although the soil analytical results indicated that the reported location of
the former underground storage tank (UST) has not been affected by
petroleum hydrocarbons, should any UST be discovered during
redevelopment activities, grading operations shall be immediately halted
and the find reported to the County of San Diego Department of
Environmental Health for proper handling and oversight in its removal.
During grading
operations.
ENG n/a
HAZ-4 Care shall be taken in handling the removal of the phase convertor electrical
equipment during construction activities. If any stained soil is observed
during grading and redevelopment activities at this location, the soil shall
be disposed of in accordance with all applicable state and federal
regulations.
During grading
operations.
ENG n/a
HAZ-5 All trash, debris, and waste materials within the project site shall be
disposed of offsite, in accordance with current local, state, and federal
disposal regulations. Any buried trash/debris encountered shall be
evaluated by an experienced environmental consultant prior to removal.
During grading
operations.
ENG n/a