HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-10-05; Planning Commission; Resolution 72011
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7201
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM,
AND ADDENDUM TO ALLOW FOR THE SUBDIVISION AND GRADING OF A
4.57 ACRE SITE INTO TWELVE {12) SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS
AND ONE (1) REMAINDER LOT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1835 BUENA
VISTA WAY AND WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1.
CASE NAME: YADA FAMILY FARM SUBDIVISION
CASE NO.: CT 15-11
WHEREAS, Vada Family Trust, "Owner/Developer," has filed a verified application with
the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
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 on September 22, 1888; and a portion of Section 31,
Township 11 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, in the
County of San Diego, State of California, according to United States
Government Survey
("the Property"); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program and Addendum were prepared in conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on October 5, 2016, 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, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad as follows:
A)
B)
That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
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)," and Addendum, Exhibit
1
"ADDM" attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings and
2 subject to the following condition:
3 Findings:
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
1.
2.
The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a.
b.
c.
d.
it has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum for CT 15-11-YADA FAMILY FARM
SUBDIVISION, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any
comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and
the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and
Addendum have 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
it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad;
and
based on the EIA and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will
have a significant effect on the environment.
The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer
contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to
mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree
of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project.
Conditions:
1. Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum for CT 15-11-YADA FAMILY
FARM SUBDIVISION.
NOTICE TO APPLICANT
An appeal of this decision to the City Council must be filed with the City Clerk at 1200 Carlsbad Village
Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008, within ten {10) calendar days of the date of the Planning Commission's
decision. Pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.54, section 21.54.150, the appeal must be in
writing and state the reason(s) for the appeal. The City Council must make a determination on the appeal
prior to any judicial review.
PC RESO NO. 7201 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of
the City of Carlsbad, California, held on October 5, 2016, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Chairperson Anderson, Commissioners Black, Goyarts, L'Heureux,
Montgomery, Segall, and Siekmann
VELYN ANDERSON, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
City Planner
PC RESO NO. 7201 -3-
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT NO:
PROJECT LOCATION:
FILE
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
YADA FAMILY FARM SUBDIVISION
CT 15-11
1835 Buena Vista Way
(cicyof
Carlsbad
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Yada Family Farm Subdivision project is proposing to subdivide a 4.57 acre site
into 12 single-family residential lots and a remainder lot for a project density of 2.8 dwelling units per acre.
Lots 1-12 are newly proposed, while the thirteenth lot is identified on the map as "not a part" and is presently
developed with an existing two-story single-family home. Residential dwelling units on Lots 1-12 are not
proposed as part of the subdivision, but in the future will include the development of 12 single-family dwelling
units and two (2) second dwelling units proposed on Lots 1 and 5 that will satisfy the project's inclusionary
housing requirements. The proposed residential lots range in size from 9,500 square feet to 15,720 square
feet. Four (4) of the proposed single-family lots, including the existing single-family home will access the site
from Buena Vista Way, while the remaining eight (8) lots will access the site from Valley Street by way of a new
public cul-de-sac street. The project includes demolition of small sheds and remnant greenhouse/shade
structures associated with a former agricultural use. Project grading affects 3.48 acres of the site with grading
quantities consisting of 38,900 cubic yards of remedial (removal & compaction), 5,890 cubic yards of cut and
5,890 cubic yards of fill. No import or export is proposed. The project proposes a volume of grading equal to
1,693 cubic yards per acre. A Tentative Tract Map (CT 15-11) is required to subdivide the property into 12
individual lots.
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 at the address
listed below or via email to jason.goff@carlsbadca.gov. Comments must be received within 20 days of the date
ofthis 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
PUBLISH DATE
June 15, 2016-July 5, 2016
June 15 2016
Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Avenue I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-602-4600 I 760-602-8560 fax
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT NO:
PROJECT LOCATION:
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
YADA FAMILY FARM SUBDIVISION
CT 15-11
1835 Buena Vista Way
{ Cicyof
Carlsbad
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Yada Family Farm Subdivision project is proposing to subdivide a 4.57 acre
site into 12 single-family residential lots and a remainder lot for a project density of 2.8 dwelling units per
acre. Lots 1-12 are newly proposed, while the thirteenth lot is identified on the map as "not a part" and
is presently developed with an existing two-story single-family home. Residential dwelling units on Lots
1-12 are not proposed as part of the subdivision, but in the future will include the development of 12
single-family dwelling units and two (2) second dwelling units proposed on Lots 1 and 5 that will satisfy
the project's inclusionary housing requirements. The proposed residential lots range in size from 9,500
square feet to 15,720 square feet. Four (4) ofthe proposed single-family lots, including the existing single-
family home will access the site from Buena Vista Way, while the remaining eight (8} lots will access the
site from Valley Street by way of a new public cul-de-sac street. The project includes demolition of small
sheds and remnant greenhouse/shade structures associated with a former agricultural use. Project
grading affects 3.48 acres of the site with grading quantities consisting of 38,900 cubic yards of remedial
(removal & compaction), 5,890 cubic yards of cut and 5,890 cubic yards of fill. No import or export is
proposed. The project proposes a volume of grading equal to 1,693 cubic yards per acre. A Tentative
Tract Map (CT 15-11) is required to subdivide the property into 12 individual lots.
DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental revjew of the above described
project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the Initial Study
identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows:
Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached
sheet have been added to the project.
A copy of the Initial Study documenting reasons to support the Mitigated Negative Declaration is on file
in the Planning Division, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008.
VANL~
Principal Planner
Community & Economic Development
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Avenue I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-602-4600 I 760-602-8560 fax
Initial Study
1. PROJECT NAME: YADA FAMILY FARM SUBDIVISION
2. PROJECT NO: CT 15-11
3. LEAD AGENCY:
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
S. LEAD AGENCY CONTACT PERSON:
4. PROJECT APPLICANT:
BHA,Inc.
Rod Bradley
Suite L
5115 Avenida Encinas
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Jason Goff, Associate Planner
Office Phone: (760) 602-4643
Email: jason.goff@carlsbadca.gov
6. PROJECT LOCATION: 1835 Buena Vista Way
7. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: R-4 (Residential, 0-4 du/ac)
8. ZONING: R-1-9,500 (One-family Residential, 9,500 sq. ft. min. lot size)
( Cicyof
Carlsbad
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Yada Family Farm Subdivision project is proposing to subdivide a 4.57
acre site into 12 single-family residential lots and a remainder lot for a project density of 2.8 dwelling
units per acre. Lots 1-12 are newly proposed, while the thirteenth lot is identified on the map as "not
a part" and is presently developed with an existing two-story single-family home. Residential dwelling
units on Lots 1-12 are not proposed as part of the subdivision, but in the future will include the
development of 12 single-family dwelling units and two (2) second dwelling units proposed on Lots 1
and 5 that will satisfy the project's inclusionary housing requirements. The proposed residential lots
range in size from 9,500 square feet to 15,720 square feet. Four (4) of the proposed single-family lots,
including the existing single-family home will access the site from Buena Vista Way, while the
remaining eight (8) lots will access the site from Valley Street by way of a new public cul-de-sac street.
The project includes demolition of small sheds and remnant greenhouse/shade structures associated
with a former agricultural use. Project grading affects 3.48 acres of the site with grading quantities
consisting of 38,900 cubic yards of remedial (removal & compaction), 5,890 cubic yards of cut and
5,890 cubic yards of fill. No import or export is proposed. The project proposes a volume of grading
equal to 1,693 cubic yards per acre. A Tentative Tract Map (CT 15-11) is required to subdivide the
property into 12 individual lots.
10. ENVIRONMENTAL SETIING/SURROUNDING LAND USES: The project site consists of a
quadrilateral-shaped property located at 1835 Buena Vista Way in Carlsbad, California (San Diego
County). The project site is generally bounded to the north by Buena Vista Way and existing single-
family residential; to the south by McCauley Lane, existing single-family residential and a church; to
the east by an approved 10-lot residential subdivision (presently developed with an existing single-
family home and previous nursery use); and to the west by Valley Street and existing single-family
residential. Topographically, the site is gently sloping to the southwesterly direction. The overall
gradient of the site is on the order of 8:1 [horizontal:vertical] or flatter. The 4.57 acre site is described
March 2016 -1-Initial Study
Project Name: YADA FAMILY FARMS SUBDIVISION
Project No: CT 15-11
as disturbed. Approximately 3.7 acres of the site has historically been used for agricultural purposes
but is presently fallow. Several small sheds and remnant greenhouse/shade structures still remain
from this agricultural use. Approximately 0.4 acres is developed with an existing two-story single-
family home and landscaped yard area; and approximately 0.47 acres exists in a developed state,
consisting of paved portions of Buena Vista Way and Valley Street, which are presently encumbered
by an easement granted to the City of Carlsbad.
11. OTHER REQUIRED AGENCY APPROVALS: None
12. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: None
13. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Less Than Significant with
Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Aesthetics 0 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0 Population & Housing
0 Agriculture & Forestry Resources [gj Hazards/Hazardous Materials 0 Public Services
0 Air Quality 0 Hydrology/Water Quality 0 Recreation
[gj Biological Resources 0 land Use & Planning 0 Transportation/Traffic
IX! Cultural Resources 0 Mineral Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geology/Soils 0 Noise IX! Mandatory Findings of Significant
14. PREPARATION: The Initial Study for the subject project was prepared by:
Date
Mart:h 2016 Initial Study
Project Name: YADA FAMILY FARMS SUBDIVISION
Project No: CT 15-11
15. DETERMINATION: (to be completed by Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
~ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
herein have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact(s)" on the
environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed
in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described herein. A Negative Declaration
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a)
have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, nothing further is required.
16. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The initial study for this project has been reviewed and the
environmental determination, indicated above, is hereby approved.
17. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES: This is to certify that I have reviewed
the mitigation measures in the Initial Study and concur with the addition of these measures to the
project.
SignatuG3j~ Date
Print Name
March 2016 -3-Initial Study
Project Name: YADA FAMILY FARMS SUBDIVISION
Project No: CT 15-11
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 ifthere 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.
March 2016 -4-Initial Study
Project Name: YADA FAMILY FARMS SUBDIVISION
Project No: CT 15-11
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.
9. Tribal consultation, if requested as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, must begin
prior to release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact
report for a project. Information provided through tribal consultation may inform the lead agency's
assessment as to whether tribal cultural resources are present, and the significance of any potential
impacts to such resources. Prior to beginning consultation, lead agencies may request information
from the Native American Heritage Commission regarding its Sacred Lands File, per Public Resources
Code sections 5097.9 and 5097.94, as well as the California Historical Resources Information System
administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation.
March 2016 -5-Initial Study
I. AESTHETICS
Project Name: YADA FAMILY FARMS SUBDIVISION
Project No: CT 15-11
tl "0 tl .. .. .. Q. ..c ... Q.
E ~ ~ .§ ~~ ... Q. ... tl c c .. c c -! fl ~ -~ ~ .. .. ..
.t:. -~ Q. c; .. ~-..,!!:: .§ .. ·-... c .. c . .. c
Would the project: 0 .!!!' "' bG .t::= .. .. 0 !lr;;:i: .. ·-2 0..11> ... II>
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 0 IZJ
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State 0 0 0 IZJ
scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the 0 0 0 IZJ site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would 0 0 0 IZJ adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
a-c) No Impact. The project site is generally bounded to the north by Buena Vista Way and existing single-
family residential; to the south by McCauley Lane, existing single-family residential and a church; to the
east by an approved 10-lot residential subdivision (presently developed with an existing single-family
home and previous nursery use); and to the west by Valley Street and existing single-family residential.
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.
tl "0 tl .. .. .. Q. ..c ... Q. ... .. E "3: 5 .§
II. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES ~i ... Q. ... tl c c .. c c ~ :3 ~ -~ ~ .. .. .. £:E Q. s:~ ..... :c-.§ .. ·-... c .. c • .. c
Would the project: 0 .!!!' U'J bD ~ .. .. 0 !lr;;:i: .. ·-0..11> ... II> 2
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared 0 0 IZJ 0 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 0 0 0 IZJ Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to 0 0 0 IZJ
non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
a) Less than Significant Impact. The project will convert approximately 3.7 acres of Unique Farmland to
a residential land use consistent with the City's General Plan. This conversion to a residential land use is
March 2016 -6-Initial Study
Project Name: YADA FAMILY FARMS SUBDIVISION
Project No: CT 15-11
consistent with the City's General Plan, which was previously evaluated and found to be less than
significant (EIR 13-02, page 3.14-9)
b) No Impact. The project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of R-4 Residential, 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 to subdivide the
4.57 acre property into 12 newly created single-family residential lots and one (1) remainder lot for the
existing single-family home, which is identified on the tentative map as "not a part". Including the existing
single-family home, the project is proposing a density of 2.8 du/ac, which is consistent with the General
Plan and GMCP for the property. Furthermore, the subject site is not encumbered by a Williamson Act
contract. Therefore, the project does not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or 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 R-4 Residential General Plan land use designation and approximately 3.7 acres of
Unique Farmland. As discussed in Section ll.a above, the project will convert Unique Farmland to a
residential land use consistent with the City's General Plan. However, the site is entirely surrounded by
existing or approved single-family development consistent with the R-4 Residential designation. No
changes proposed by this project would impact other farms or result in additional farmland conversion in
the area as none are adjacent or within the vicinity. No impact is assessed.
ti ... ti ... .. ... CL .c .. CL .. ... E -~ 5 .§ >:: .. CL .. ti Ill. AIR QUALITY* = c c c ... c c ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ... ... ... ..c u CL c-.: ... !:!:::-t-i: .§ .. ·-.. c .. c . .. c
0 -~ Ill bD:!:::: .. ., 0 ~u;~ .. ·-Would the project: D.. <I) ....1<1) z
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 0 0 ~ 0 quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 0 0 ~ 0 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 0 0 ~ 0
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 0 0 0 ~ concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 0 0 ~ 0 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.
local Air Quality: An area is designated in attainment when it is in compliance with the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (federal) and/or California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) (state).
These standards are set by the Environmental Protection Agency or the California Air Resources Board for
the maximum level of a given air pollutant that can exist in the outdoor air without unacceptable effects
on human health or the public welfare. The criteria pollutants of primary concern that are considered in
an air quality assessment include ozone (03), nitrogen dioxide (N02), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide
March 2016 -7-Initial Study
Project Name: YADA FAMILY FARMS SUBDIVISION
Project No: CT 15-11
(S02), particulate matter (PM1o, and PM2.s), lead and toxic air contaminants. Although there are no
ambient standards for VOCs or NO., they are important as precursors to 03.
The San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) is designated as a marginal nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour NAAQS
for 03. The SDAB is designated in attainment for all other criteria pollutants under the NAAQS with the
exception of PM1o, which was determined to be unclassified. The SDAB is currently designated
nonattainment for 03 and particulate matter, PM10 and PM2.s, under the CAAQS. It is designated as
attainment for CAAQS for CO, N02, S02, lead and sulfates.
a) Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located in the SDAB. The periodic violations of (NAAQS)
in the SDAB, particularly for 03 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 by the San Diego
County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) with regional growth projections provided by 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 plan for
the air basin.
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. The project is within the scope of development that was anticipated
in the SANDAG growth projections and Carlsbad's General Plan in 2009 used to develop the RAQS and SIP.
Operation of the project will result in emissions that were considered as a part of the RAQS growth
projections. As such, the proposed project is not anticipated to conflict with either the RAQS or the SIP.
Additionally, the operational emissions from the project are below the screening levels, and subsequently
will not violate ambient air quality standards.
b) Less than Significant Impact. The APCD operates a network of ambient air monitoring stations
throughout San Diego County. Due to its proximity to Carlsbad with similar geographic and climatic
characteristics, the Del Mar-Mira Costa College monitoring station concentrations of 8-hour and 1-hour
03 are considered most representative of 03 in Carlsbad. The Escondido-East Valley Parkway monitoring
station is the nearest location where PMw, PM2.s, N02, and CO concentrations are monitored. TheEl Cajon
-Redwood Avenue monitoring station is the nearest location where S02 concentrations are monitored.
Data available for these monitoring sites from 2010 through 2013 indicate that the most recent air quality
violations recorded were as follows: the 1-Hour 03 concentration did not exceed the state standard any
time during the years 2010 through 2013; the 8-Hour 03 concentration exceeded the state standard in
2010, 2011, and 2012, and exceeded the federal standard in 2012; the 24-Hour PM1o concentration
exceeded the state standard in 2009; the state annual PM1o standard was exceeded in 2013; and the
federal standard for 24-Hour PM2.s standard was exceeded in 2012 and 2013. Air quality within the region
was in compliance with both CAAQS and NAAQS for N02, CO, and S02 during this monitoring period.
Grading and Construction. The project involves the subdivision of land and future development of 12 new
single-family homes, which includes emissions associated with grading and construction. Emissions would
March 2016 -8-Initial Study
Project Name: YADA FAMILY FARMS SUBDIVISION
Project No: a 15-11
be minimized through standard construction measures, storm water pollution prevention plan
requirements, Best Management Practices (BMPs), and when applicable, the California Green Building
Standards Code that would reduce fugitive dust debris, emissions and other criteria pollutant emissions
during grading and construction. Therefore emissions from the construction phase would be minimal,
temporary and localized, resulting in pollutant emissions that are not anticipated to significantly
contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation.
Operations. Vehicle trip emissions associated with travel to and from the project will result in 120 ADTs.
Vehicle trip emissions associated with the project are minimal and not anticipated to significantly
contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation.
c) Less than Significant Impact. Air quality emissions associated with the project include emissions from
grading and construction. However, grading and construction operations associated with the project
would minimize emissions through standard construction measures, storm water pollution prevention
plan measures and best management practices, and Green Building Code as noted in b). Other proposed
or future projects within the surrounding area were evaluated and none of the projects emit significant
amounts of pollutants or exceed AQMD or APCD standards. Operational emissions associated with the
project are anticipated to be consistent with the RAQS and SIP and do not exceed APCD standards.
The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net
increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with
the proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the
proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is
implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), the proposed project's incremental
contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable. Any impact is assessed as less than
significant.
d) No Impact. Sensitive receptors include schools, hospitals, playgrounds, child care centers, athletic
facilities, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, retirement homes
or other facilities that house individuals with health conditions that would be adversely impacted by
changes in air quality. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant
emissions or concentrations. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors located in the vicinity of the
project. The project itself is not proposed in the vicinity of an existing pollution source that would expose
sensitive receptors within the project to pollutants. No impact is assessed.
e) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project could generate objectionable odors from
construction, vehicles and/or equipment exhaust from volatile organic compounds, ammonia, carbon
dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, methane, alcohols, disulfides, dusts or other pollutants during the construction
or operation of the project. Such exposure would be in trace amounts, localized in the immediate area,
temporary and would generally occur at magnitudes that would not affect substantial numbers of people.
Therefore, impacts associated with odors during construction or operation would be considered less than
significant.
March 2016 -9-Initial Study
IV.
Project Name: YADA FAMILY FARMS SUBDIVISION
Project No: CT 15-11
-"'C t: u '" .. '" Q. ..r:-Q. -'" E '3 5 .§
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES >:;::; -Q. -t: = c ; ; 0 c c ~ ~ '" '" '" ..c -~ ~ .&: .!::! Q. r::~ .... ::!:::-.... :'!:::: .§ .. ·-- c
"' c . "' c Would the project: o$ ~ ~~ ~ -~ 0 0.111 ... "' z
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, D ~ D D
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 D D D ~ 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 D D D ~ 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 D D D ~ resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological D D D ~ 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 D D D ~
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
a) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The City of Carlsbad has an adopted Habitat
Management Plan (HMP), which is a comprehensive, citywide, program to identify how the City, in
cooperation with the federal and state wildlife agencies, can preserve the diversity of habitat and protect
sensitive biological resources within the City while allowing for additional development consistent with
the City's General Plan and its Growth Management Plan. In so doing, the Plan is intended to lead to
citywide permits and authorization for the incidental take of sensitive species in conjunction with private
development projects, public projects, and other activities, which are consistent with the Plan. As
discussed in the subsequent passages, the project does not conflict with any of the provisions of the HMP.
The 4.57 acre site is mostly-vacant agricultural land with exception to an existing single-family home
located in the northeastern corner of the property and the portions of paved roadway along Buena Vista
Way and Valley Street under an easement to the City of Carlsbad. Several remnant greenhouse/shade
structures and several small shed buildings exist along the southern portions of the property. The
property is primarily surrounded by existing single-family development, with exception to the property to
the east, which was recently approved for a 10-lot residential subdivision for future development of
single-family homes (Miles Buena Vista-CT 14-04/PUD 14-06}. According to the HMP, the project 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 Biological Resources Survey was prepared by Vincent N. Scheidt, Certified Biological Consultant dated
January 2016 to provide a site specific evaluation of the biological resources on the project site. According
March 2016 -10-Initial Study
Project Name: YADA FAMILY FARMS SUBDIVISION
Project No: Cf lS-11
to the report, approximately 3.7 acres ofthe site is considered agricultural lands, which is considered an
HMP Group F type habitat, while 0.4 acres is considered developed land and consists of an existing single-
family residence that is proposed to remain. Not discussed in the report is an additional 0.47 acres
consisting of a portion of paved roadway along Buena Vista Way and Valley Street, which is encumbered
by an easement to the City of Carlsbad and considered developed land. No sensitive plant species,
including wetlands, were observed. One (1) sensitive animal species, a Red-shouldered Hawk, was
observed perched on an abandoned greenhouse structure. Mitigation for impacts to 3.7 acres of Group
F habitat will be mitigated through habitat in-lieu mitigation fees. Impacts to migratory birds (including
raptors) and the destruction of any active migratory bird nests and/or eggs will be prevented by the
implementation of seasonal restrictions on the removal of potential nesting areas (tree and shrubs) in
conjunction with site build-out. No mitigation is required for impacts to developed/paved areas.
Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce impacts to a level of less than significant:
BIO 1-Prior to recordation of a final map or the issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever
occurs first, the applicant shall pay habitat in-lieu mitigation fees consistent with the City's Habitat
Management Plan (HMP) for impacts to 3.7-acres of Agricultural Lands (Group-F Habitat).
BIO 2-No habitat removal or construction noises in excess of 60 decibels shall be permitted during the
avian breeding seasons, which is generally defined as January pt through September 15th. This
restriction may be waived if avian nesting surveys are conducted on all areas within 300 feet of
the proposed activity. The results of said survey shall be provided in a written report to the City
Planner for concurrence with conclusions and recommendations.
b-f) No Impact. The Biological Resources Survey prepared for the project does not identify any wetlands
or wetland habitat onsite. No tributary areas were identified onsite. 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.
t: 'tl t: .. ..r::.l!! .. "" ... .. "" E 'i :s .§
v. CULTURAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ~~ ... "" ... ... c c ... c c u ! fl ~ -~ ~ .. .. ..
.c -~ "" Cii: .... ~-... -.§ ., ·-"'·c ... c .. c .
Would the project: 0 .~ "" aa ~ ; .ee 0 "-"' !lu;:i!! ..... "' z
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical D IX! D D resource as defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an D IX! D D archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or D IX! D D site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of D IX! D D dedicated cemeteries?
e) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal
cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074
as either: D IX! D D
1) a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred
March 2016 -11-Initial Study
V.
Project Name: YADA FAMILY FARMS SUBDIVISION
Project No: a 15-11
tJ 't:l tJ .. 41 .. a. ..c .. a. .. .. E ·~ 0 §
CULTURAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES >:: .. a. .. tJ = c c c .. c c .. .. ~ -~ ~ .. .. .. ~~ .I:.!::! a.
41 ·--!!::::--!!:::: § .. c .. c . .. c
Would the project: 0 .!!!' ~ bD.:!::: .. .. 0 ~u;:ii: 41 ·-z C>.Vl ..... .,
place, or object with cultural value to a California Native
American Tribe, that is listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical Resources, or on a local register
of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code
section 5020.1{k); or
2) a resource determined by a lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to be significant according
to the historical register criteria in Public Resources Code
section 5024.1 (c) while considering the significance of the
resource to a California Native American tribe.
a, b, d and e) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A Cultural Resources Study was
prepared for the site by ASM Affiliates on February 23, 2016. 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) with a :V2-mile
search radius; an intensive pedestrian survey ofthe APE, and review of the Sacred Lands Files held by the
Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC).
The results of the SCIC records search (November 29, 2015) indicates no cultural resources or historic
addresses previously recorded or located within the APE; however four cultural resources are located
within a :V2-miles search radius. The archeologic field survey (November 23, 2015) identified the site in a
highly distu_rbed state, as most of the property has been used extensively for agriculture. No cultural
resources were identified during the archeological survey. A NAHC records search was requested on
November 20, 2015; and on December 8, 2015 the NAHC responded that the Sacred Lands Files revealed
that one archeological site (SDI-8797), located approximately 3 miles to the south of the project area, has
been recorded on the San Luis Rey USGS Quadrangles and that the Tribal Council of the San Luis Rey Band
of Mission Indians should be contacted for additional information. On December 10, 2015, ASM Affiliates
sent a letter to the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians in addition to 22 other Native American tribes
requesting additional information. On December 30, 2015, the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians
responded that they had intimate knowledge of many discoveries made throughout the project area and
are aware of cultural resource sites within close proximity. They urged caution in assessing the land
encompassing the project for any development purposes; requested incorporating the presence of a
Luisei'io Native American monitor during all ground disturbing activities; and requested that any further
information that they can provide regarding cultural resources and sacred sites within the project area be
done in person.
On February 10, 2016, in accordance with Assembly Bill 52, the Planning Division notified the San Luis Rey
Band of Mission Indians, which is a traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribe
who has requested notice of proposed projects. The notice was sent before the project was deemed
complete. The San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians responded within 30 days on February 16, 2016, and
requested consultation. On February 24,2016 representatives of the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians
consulted directly with Planning Division staff. Due to the presence of cultural resources within the vicinity
March 2016 -12-Initial Study
Project Name: YADA FAMILY FARMS SUBDIVISION
Project No: CT 15-11
of the project site, 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 any recommended archeological monitoring so as to specifically address any
potential tribal cultural resources that may be found given the Band's traditional territory.
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 a Luisei'io Native
American monitor of the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians during all ground-disturbing activities.
Through implementation of the following mitigation measure, as recommended in the ASM Affiliates
report, combined with the requirements for tribal monitoring and a formal pre-excavation agreement
with the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, impacts to any unforeseen or accidentally discovered
archeological and/or tribal cultural resources are reduced to a level of less than significant:
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 ofthe 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.
e) . Prior to issuance of building permits for the development of any future homes, a final summary
report shall be completed and submitted to the City Planner outlining the results of the mitigation
program. The cultural resources monitoring 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. 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}.
March 2016 -13-Initial Study
Project Name: YADA FAMILY FARMS SUBDIVISION
Project No: CT 15-11
f) If any human remains are discovered, all construction activity in the immediate area oft he discovery
shall cease immediately, and the Archaeological monitor shall notify the County Medical Examiner
pursuant to California Health and Safety Section 7050.5. Should the Medical Examiner determine
the human remains to be Native American; the Native American Heritage Commission shall be
contacted pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The Native American
Monitor (pursuant to Mitigation Measure CUL-2), in consultation with the Native American Heritage
Commission, shall inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American remains and may
recommend to the City of Carlsbad, and the project contractor, actions for treating or disposing,
with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. The recommendation
may include the scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items
associated with Native American burials. The project contractor shall provide a reasonable period
of time for salvage of discovered human remains before resuming construction activities.
CUL-2-The following tribal 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 Luisefio
Native American human remains inadvertently uncovered during the course of the project.
The agreement will outline the roles and powers of the Luisefio Native American monitors and
the archaeologist.
b) Any and all uncovered artifacts of Luisefio 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 Luisefio Native American monitor and the archaeologist can assess the nature
and significance of the find.
d) The Luisefio 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.
March 2016 -14-Initial Study
Project Name: YADA FAMILY FARMS SUBDIVISION
Project No: CT 15-11
f) When cultural resources are discovered during the project, if the archaeologist collects such
resources, a Luiseiio Native American monitor must be present during any testing or cataloging
of those resources. If the archaeologist does not collect the cultural resources that are
unearthed during the ground disturbing activities, the Luiseiio Native American monitor, may in
their discretion, collect said resources and provide them to the tribe 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 Luiseiio 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 Luiseiio
Native American monitor that such fill material does not contain cultural resources.
c) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A Paleontological Resources Assessment was
prepared for the project site by the Department of PaleoServices, San Diego Natural History Museum
(SDNHM), dated January 11, 2016. A paleontological field survey was not conducted because a survey of
the adjacent property was previously conducted by Shelly L. Donohue on February 11, 2015 and no fossils
were observed. It was determined that an additional field survey was not necessary because sedimentary
strata on the west and east sides of the subject project site have already been inspected for
paleontological resource potential. However, a records search was conducted at the SDNHM for any
records of known fossil collection localities within a 1-mile radius of the project site. No fossil collection
localities from the old paralic deposits, nor from the Santiago Formation are known within 1 mile of the
project site. However, fossils are known to exist from these deposits in the greater Carlsbad area. The
report indicates that the Quaternary old paralic deposits from 0-4 feet below existing grade are
considered to be of low paleontological sensitivity due to past disturbance from horticultural activities,
and thus will not contain in-place fossils. However, strata of the Santiago Formation occur in the
subsurface at the project site and are assigned a high paleontological sensitivity based on previous
discoveries of important fossil remains in the Carlsbad area. Although Santiago Formation strata will not
be directly impacted by proposed mass grading activities, it is possible that deeper excavations (i.e., >15
feet below existing grade) associated with the remediation for contaminated soils may impact these
strata. Through implementation of the following mitigation measure as recommended in the SDNHM
report, impacts to any unforeseen or accidentally discovered paleontological resources are reduced to a
level of less than significant:
March 2016 -15-Initial Study
Project Name: YADA FAMILY FARMS SUBDIVISION
Project No: CT 15-11
PALE0-1-The following paleontological resource mitigation measures shall be implemented:
a) Prior to issuance of a grading permit the project developer shall retain the services of a qualified
paleontologist to carry out the mitigation program outlined herein. A qualified paleontologist is
defined as an individual with a MS or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology that is experienced with
paleontological procedures and techniques, who is knowledgeable in the geology and
paleontology of San Diego County, and who has worked as a paleontological mitigation project
supervisor in the county for at least one year. The applicant shall provide verification that a
qualified paleontologist meeting these requirements has been retained, and verification shall be
documented by a letter from the applicant and the paleontologist to the lead agency.
b) A qualified paleontologist shall be present at a pre-construction meeting to consult with the
grading and excavation contractors concerning excavation schedules, paleontological field
techniques and safety issues.
c) A paleontological monitor shall be onsite during all earthwork operations that extend greater than
4 feet below existing grade. A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has
experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials. The paleontological monitor shall
work under the direction of a qualified paleontologist.
d) If fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall recover them. In
most cases this fossil salvage can be completed in a short period of time. However, some fossil
specimens (e.g., a complete large mammal skeleton) may require an extended salvage period. In
these instances the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall be allowed to temporarily
direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner. Because of
the potential for the recovering of small fossil remains, such as isolated mammal teeth, it may be
necessary to set up a screen-washing operation on the site.
e) Any fossil remains collected during monitoring and salvage shall be cleaned, repaired, sorted,
identified, and cataloged as part ofthe mitigation program.
f) Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos and maps, shall be deposited
(as a donation) in a scientific institution with permanent paleontological collections such as the
San Diego Natural History Museum. Donation offossils shall be accompanied by financial support
for initial specimen storage.
g) Prior to issuance of building permits for the development of any future homes, a final summary
report shall be completed and submitted to the City Planner outlining the results of the mitigation
program. This report shall include discussions of the methods used, stratigraphic section(s)
exposed, fossils collected, and significance of recovered fossils.
... ., tl u "' ..c:~ "' Q. ... "' Q. E ·~ 0 .§
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS >= ... Q. ... tl = c ; ; 0 c c :! ~ "' "' "' .z¥.5 £~ Q. c;.;:: .§ Ill·-U'J ·c ~ "' ·c ... c
Would the project: 0 .!!!> U'J tu) ·-"' "" 0 ~iii2 Ill·-C. VI -'"' z
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 D D D [XI most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
March 2016 -16-Initial Study
VI.
Project Name: YADA FAMILY FARMS SUBDIVISION
Project No: CT 15-11
tl "'0 tl '" "' '" c. .<: ... c. ... "' E ·:;: 0 §
GEOLOGY AND SOILS >:;::; ... c.
1: c tl = 1: ~ ~ 0 ! .~ "' "' "' ~ .~ g .J: .!::! c. c:::-...... ~-.... ~ § "'·-... 1: ~ ~~ .. 1:
Would the project: 0 .!!!> .. .. 0 O..V> !liii:E ,!iu:; z
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? D D IZJ D
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? D D IZJ D
iv. Landslides? D D D IZJ
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? D D IZJ D
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 D D IZJ D 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 D D D IZJ
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers 0 D D IZJ
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 investigation was prepared by
GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) dated August 3, 2015 to evaluate the onsite soils and geologic conditions, and their
effects on the proposed site development from a geotechnical viewpoint. While no Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault zones exist within the City of Carlsbad, and there is no other evidence of active or
potentially active faults within the City; there are however 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 approximately 5.8 miles to the west. The possibility of ground
acceleration, or shaking at the site, may be considered as approximately similar to the southern California
region as a whole. 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 investigation be incorporated into the design
of the project. The site geologic units encountered during the subsurface investigation and site
reconnaissance included small, localized areas of undocumented artificial fill, and localized Quaternary-
age colluvi!Jm (topsoil) underlain by Quaternary-age old paralic deposits (weathered and unweathered).
The susceptibility of the site to experience damaging deformations from seismically-induced liquefaction
and densification is relatively low owing to the dense, nature of the older paralic deposits that underlie
the site in the near-surface and the depth of the regional water table. Furthermore, the recommendations
for remedial earthwork and foundations would reduce any significant liquefaction/densification potential.
March 2016 -17-Initial Study
Project Name: YADA FAMILY FARMS SUBDIVISION
Project No: CT 15-11
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 investigation, 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. In addition, other geologic/seismic related hazards, such as
subsidence, dynamic settlement, surface fault rupture, ground lurching or shallow ground rupture,
tsunami and seiche were considered. 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 preliminary geotechnical investigation, 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.) No Impact. According to the preliminary geotechnical investigation, the overall gradient of the site
is on an order of 8:1 [Horizontai:Vertical] or flatter. No steep slopes exist onsite that would expose
people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects from landslide. No impact is assessed.
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) No Impact. According to the preliminary geotechnical investigation, the expansion index testing
performed on the representative samples of the onsite soils indicates non-detrimentally expansive soil
conditions. With an expansion index of less than 5, the expansion potential for onsite soils are considered
"very low". Therefore, no impact is assessed.
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.
t: .., t: '" "' '" a. .s:-a. -'" E '3: 0 .§
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ~~ -a. -t: c c ~ c c ~~ ~ -~ ~ '" '" '" -'= -~ a. "'·--~-... !t: .§
-c "' c . "' 1: Would the project: 0 .~ ~ ~~ :3 .~ 0
"'"' ...JIll z
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, D D IZl D that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for D D IZl 0 the purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
March 2016 -18-Initial Study
Project Name: YADA FAMILY FARMS SUBDIVISION
Project No: CT 15-11
a-b) Less than Significant Impact. The project is expected to generate Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions
in the short-term as a result of construction emissions and in the long-term primarily 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., December 16, 2015, the
proposed project is expected to generate a total of 245.26 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
emissions (C02e). Automobile trips and energy consumption being the two largest contributors would
represent 153.04 metric tons of C02e emissions; and 49.67 metric tons of C02e emissions; while project
related construction emissions would represent 9.23 metric tons of C02e emissions averaged over a 30
year period. The City of Carlsbad's Climate Action Plan includes a 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 (245.26 metric tons of C02e) generated by the project, combined with the state and federal
reduction measures are below the screening threshold and thus are not considered significant. Therefore,
impacts from GHG emissions on the environment are considered to be less than significant.
tl "0 tl "' .. "' a. .r. ... a. ... "' E ·;: 5 .§
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS >:;: ... a. ... ... = c ~ ~ 0 c c u ~ fl "' "' "' ..1: .!:! ~ .c .!::! a. c<o:: ... ~-... :'!:::: .§ .. -... c '" c • '" c Would the project: 0 .!!!' ~ ~~ '" .. 0 .. ·-z 0.111 -' VI
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous D IZl D D
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving D IZl D D
the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile D D D IZl
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 D D ~ D 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 D D D IZl 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 D D D IZl
the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted D D D IZl 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 D D D IZl adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
March 2016 -19-Initial Study
Project Name: YADA FAMILY FARMS SUBDIVISION
Project No: CT 15-11
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 August
19, 2015. It was noted that the property has been owned by the same owner since 1976 and has been
used for agricultural purposes growing vegetables, strawberries, and flowers since that time. Diesel fuel
and pesticides have historically been used at the site and stored in a shed along the southwestern property
boundary. Pesticide mixing also occurred near the property entrance. No evidence of spills or release of
hazardous chemicals or materials in the form of stained soil or significant odor was readily observed during
the site survey by GSI. However, based on the historical use of the subject site for agricultural purposes,
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; total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPHg) testing was performed in
accordance with EPA Method 8015, volatile organic compound (VOC) testing was performed in
accordance with EPA Method 8260B; and arsenic was analyzed in accordance with EPA Method 6010.
Detected concentrations of arsenic exceeded the California Human Health Screening Level (CHHSL), but
according to GSI were within the range of natural background concentrations for southern California soils.
Toxaphene was detected in samples collected at 6-inch and 1-foot below the existing ground surface at
concentrations exceeding the CHHL for residential properties (CHHSL-R). However, Toxaphene was not
detected at concentrations exceeding the CH HSL -R in any soil sam pie collected at 2-feet below the existing
ground surface; thus concluding that the presence of Toxaphene at the subject site is confined to soil at
an elevation above 2-feet in depth. TPHg, VOCs, and other organochlorine pesticides were not detected
above laboratory reporting limits in any soil sample collected.
The GSI evaluations also found that based on the age of the existing onsite structures, it is possible that
building components may contain Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs) and Lead-Based Paints (LBPs). A
mitigation measure has been included requiring ACM and LBP surveys be performed onsite by a licensed
asbestos/lead consultant prior to demolition of the existing structures onsite. If ACMs and LBPs are found
to be present, special handling and disposal techniques will be necessary under the oversight of a qualified
consultant. Once structures are removed, soils should also be visually evaluated for the presence of
staining in areas where fuel was formally stored. Should any stained soil be encountered during the
redevelopment activities it should be evaluated prior to removal. Additionally, all trash, debris, and waste
materials should be disposed of offsite, in accordance with current local, state, and federal disposal
regulations. Any buried trash/debris encountered during site earthwork shall be evaluated by an
experienced environmental consultant prior to removal. By following the recommendations contained
within the referenced reports, and through implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-
41isted below, the site is suitable for the proposed project, and exposure of people to hazardous materials
is considered to be less than significant.
Lastly, the project 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
March 2016 -20-Initial Study
Project Name: YADA FAMILY FARMS SUBDIVISION
Project No: CT 15-11
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is considered to be less that
significant.
Implementation of the following mitigation measures as discussed above will reduce impacts to a less
than significant level:
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 ofthe City Planner.
HAZ-2-Prior to demolition of 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 Planning Division prior to the issuance of a
grading permit.
HAZ-3-Once structures have been removed, soils shall be visually evaluated for the presence of staining
in areas where fuel was formally stored. Any stained soil encountered during the redevelopment activities
shall be further evaluated by an experienced environmental consultant prior to removal.
HAZ-4 -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.
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 Impact. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Limited Phase II Soil
Evaluation prepared by GSI and dated August 19, 2015, revealed that 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 the County of San Diego Hazardous Material Mitigation Division (HMMD) database,
indicating that the subject site reportedly had a permit to handle hazardous materials in the past, which
expired in 1994. Through implementation ofthe mitigation measures discussed in Section Vlll.a through
Vlll.b above; and by following the recommendations contained within the referenced report, the site is
suitable for the proposed project and exposure of people to hazardous materials is considered to be 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.
March 2016 -21-Initial Study
Project Name: YADA FAMILY FARMS SUBDIVISION
Project No: CT 15-11
g) No impact. The proposed project involves the redevelopment of a previous agricultural use. 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 site is identified as "urban" in the City of Carlsbad's General Plan Public Safety
Element. This site is not located adjacent to open space or natural habitat, and therefore 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. No impact is assessed.
t: "1:1 .. u '" J: 2! '" Cl. .. '" Cl. E "i: 0 .§
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ~~ .. Cl. .. t: c c .. c c ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ '" '" '" ;:~ Cl. c; .. ~-.§ ~ ·c "' c . Ul '2
Would the project: 0 .!!!' s ~~ "' .. 0 Ill·-"-"' -'VI z
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge D 0 ~ 0 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 D 0 ~ 0 water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,
in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation D 0 ~ 0
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 D 0 ~ 0
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 D 0 ~ D
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? D 0 ~ 0
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a
Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or D 0 0 IZl
other flood delineation map?
h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would D 0 0 ~ 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 D 0 0 lg]
failure of a levee or dam?
March 2016 -22-Initial Study
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Project Name: YADA FAMILY FARMS SUBDIVISION
Project No: CT 15-11
t: "0 t: .. .. .. a. .., ... a. E ·j ~ .§ ~~ ... a. ... t: c c .. c c ~ :3 ~ -~ ~ .. .. ..
.c -~ a. c; -:t:-.... ~ .§ .. ·-... c "' c . "' c 0 .!!!' .., bD.:!:: "' .. 0 .3;;;::!: .. ·-z "-"' .... "'
D D D ~
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. R9-2013-0001 and amendments R9-
2015-0001 and R9-2015-0100 issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the San
Diego Region. As part of these requirements, the applicant must prepare and submit a Storm Water
Management Plan (SWMP} addressing what treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs} will be
constructed to treat the post-development runoff from the project. The SWMP will address how
pollutants from this project will be reduced, captured, filtered, and/or treated prior to discharge from the
project site. Through this process, the project will not violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements and impacts are therefore considered to be less than significant.
b) less than Significant Impact. The project does not propose to directly draw any groundwater; instead
it will be served via existing public water distribution lines within the public right-of-way adjacent to the
site. Existing water lines will adequately serve the project's water demands. Rainwater infiltration is
needed to provide adequate groundwater recharge. A Preliminary Drainage Study dated April 4, 2016
and a Priority Development Project Storm Water Mitigation Plan dated April 5, 2016, were prepared for
the project by BHA, Inc. According to the reports, the project incorporates Low Impact Development {LID}
design features, which promote infiltration of storm water run-off by proposing to minimize impervious
surface areas and directing run-off into bio-retention basins located along Valley Street. The
implementation of these 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 Priority Development Project Storm
Water Mitigation Plan demonstrates 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
March 2016 -23-Initial Study
Project Name: YADA FAMILY FARMS SUBDIVISION
Project No: CT 15-11
infiltration of storm water run-off by proposing to minimize impervious surface areas and 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.
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. 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 im pie mentation 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.
tl 'C tl "' .. "' c. .c ... c. ... "' E ·~ 0 .§
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING >:;::: ... c. ... tl = c c c ~ c c .!! n:l «< ~ 8 "' "' "' c~ £~ c. £ti:.5 .§ .. ·-\n ·c . ., ·c ... c
Would the project: 0 -~ U'l t10~ .. bO 0 ~iii:E .. ·-z C..<n ..... .,
a) Physically divide an established community? D D D ~
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 D D D ~
zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural D D D ~ community conservation plan?
a-c) No Impact. The project involves subdivision of the site into 12 residential lots plus one remainder lot
for the future construction of detached single-family homes consistent with the surrounding residential
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 R-4 Residential. R-4 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 2.8 dwelling units per acre, which
is within the R-4 density range and consistent with the GMCP. No impact is assessed.
March 2016 -24-Initial Study
XI.
Project Name: YADA FAMILY FARMS SUBDIVISION
Project No: CT 15-11
tl "0 tl '" Q) '" a. ..<:: ... a. ... '" .§ -~ 0 .§
MINERAL RESOURCES >-... ... c. ... tJ = c ~ ~ 8 c c '" '" '" "' '" :p u ..c..!::::! c. c::~ £~-= ... .,_ .S 2 ·c V) ·c: . V) ·c
Would the project: 0 -~ ~ ~~ V) "" 0 Q) ·-C..Vl -'Vl z
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 D D D IXl
State?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific D D D IXl
plan, or other land use plan?
a-b) No Impact. Carlsbad is devoid of any non-renewable energy resources of economic value to the
region and the residents of the State. 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. (EIR 13-02, page 3.15-1)
tl "t:l tl '" ..c-2! '" c. ... '" a. E "§ 5 .§
XII. NOISE >:;::: ... a. .. tl = c c c ~ c c .!! ftl nl rl s '" '" '" ~~ £~ a. Zi:.E .§ B ·c .. c . "''2
Would the project result in: 0 -~ "'t&D~ "' .. 0 ~Vi:!: .. ·-0..<11 -'<II z
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance D D D IXl
or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne D D IXl D vibration or groundbourne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the D D D IXl project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity aboye levels existing without the D D IXl D
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 D D D IXl 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 D D D IXl
excessive noise levels?
a) No Impact. A noise study was prepared for the proposed residential project to determine compatibility
with the City of Carlsbad's Noise Guidelines Manual (Ldn Consulting, Inc., December 16, 2015). According
to the study, existing noise levels in the project area consist primarily of residential activities and vehicle
traffic along Buena Vista Way and Valley Street as well as Carlsbad Village Drive located approximately
500 feet to the south. The worst case cumulative noise level was found to be 58.9 dBA CNEL as measured
at the site. Interior noise levels are required to be mitigated to a maximum 45 dBA CNEL in all habitable
March 2016 -25-Initial Study
Project Name: YADA FAMILY FARMS SUBDIVISION
Project No: a 15-11
rooms when the exterior is exposed to levels of 60 dBA CNEL or greater. Based upon the study, future
noise levels are found to be below 60 dBA CNEL. Therefore, no noise mitigation is required to comply
with the City of Carlsbad Noise standards. 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 13 single-family residential lots (12 proposed and one "not a part"),
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 13
single-family residential lots (12 proposed and one "not a part") and locating future homes at the site will
not expose people residing within the project area to airport noise impacts. No impact is assessed.
f) No Impact. No private airstrip exists within the vicinity of the subject project. No impact is assessed.
t: -a t: .. .::: .l!l .. Q. ~ .. Q.
E ·~ 0 .§
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING ~~ ~ Q. ~ ~ ; ; 0 <: <: u ~ e .. '" ..
..1: .~ ~ -5~ Q. c:::o;:: .... !!::::-.§ .. ·-., ·c ... <: en r:::....;
Would the project: 0 .!:!!> ., bD ·-"' "" 0 ~u;::!! .. ·-z 0..<1) ..... "'
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for D D D IZl
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the D D D IZl construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the D D D IZl construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
a-c) No Impact. The project will allow for the future development of 12 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, are designated for R-4
Residential on the General Plan Land Use Map. The R-4 designation 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 density of the proposed resjdential development at 2.8 du/ac is consistent with the City of
Carlsbad General Plan and Growth Management Plan. The project does not displace any existing housing
or people. Therefore, no impact is assessed.
March 2016 -26-Initial Study
Project Name: YADA FAMILY FARMS SUBDIVISION
Project No: CT 15-11
tl ., tl '" ..c ~ '" Cl. ... .. Cl. E "3 Ci .5 ~~ ... Cl. .... tl XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES c c ~ c c ~~ ~ -~ g '" '" '" J: -~ Cl. .. ·-.... ~-... ~ .5 ... c .. c . .. c
0 .!!!' v. t\D -~ .. .. 0 Su;:!E .. ·-z Would the project: 0..1.11 ..... "'
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? D D D ~
ii. Police protection? D D D ~
iii. Schools? D D D ~
iv. Parks? D D D ~
v. Other public facilities? D D D ~
a.i -a.v) No Impact. The project will allow for the future development of 12 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 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.
tl ., ... .. u '" '" Cl. .c ... Cl. ... '" E "3 Ci .5
XV. RECREATION ~~ ... Cl. ... tl :; ; 0 c c "' '" '" '" '" ~ u ..c .. ~ ~ £~ Cl. c:t: .... ~-.5 .! "2 II) c ...; ., ·c
0 .9!1 "' bO ·-"' .. 0 Su;:!E .. ·-0..1.11 ..... .., z
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial D D D IZl 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 D D D ~
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
a-b) No Impact. The project will allow for the future development of 12 new 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
March 2016 -27-Initial Study
Project Name: YADA FAMILY FARMS SUBDIVISION
Project No: CT 15-11
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.
March 2016 -28-Initial Study
Project Name: YADA FAMILY FARMS SUBDIVISION
Project No: CT 15-11
~ -a ~ "' .. "' CL ..:-CL E ~ E .§
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ~~ ! ~ ... ~ ; ; 0 c c ~ ~ "' "' "' .c .!:! ~ .c .!:! CL Cti= .... !'!::::-...... .§ .. ·-"' c . .., ·c -c Would the project: 0 -~ .., bD:!:: "' .. 0 ~iii:E .. ·-z C.. II"> .... .,
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 0 0 IX] 0
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 0 0 0 IX]
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 0 0 0 IX]
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm 0 0 0 IX]
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 0 IX]
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the 0 0 0 IX]
performance or safety of such facilities?
a) Less than Significant Impact. The 13 lot single-family residential subdivision (12 proposed and one "not
a part") with 9,500 sq. ft. minimum lot sizes will generate 130 Average Daily Trips (ADT), which is a net
increase of 120 ADT over the existing single-family residential dwelling unit. 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
March 2016 -29-Initial Study
Project Name: YADA FAMILY FARMS SUBDIVISION
Project No: CT 15-11
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.
tl "C tl "' .. "' CL z; .. CL .. .. E ·::: 0 .§
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS >:;::: .. CL ... tl = c ; ; 0 c c :! ~ .. .. ..
-'= -~ ~ .c .!::! CL c:t:: .... ~-..... ~ .§ .. ·-... c "' c . "' c Would the project: 0.2!' ~ ~~ "' .. 0 .. ·-z 0..111 ..... Ill
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable D D D ~ 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 D D D ~ 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 D D D ~
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 D D D ~
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider,
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate D D D ~ 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 D D D ~ accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations D D D ~ related to solid waste?
a-g) No Impact. The proposed subdivision, allowing for the future development of 12 single-family
dwelling units and two second dwelling units, 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 (2.8 du/ac) is less than that which was originally anticipated (3.2
du/ac) 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
March 2016 -30-Initial Study
Project Name: YADA FAMILY FARMS SUBDIVISION
Project No: CT 15-11
expand or construct new water facilities/supplies, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage
facilities. No impact is assessed.
t: -,:, t: ra .. ra Q. .c .. Q. E j ~ .E
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE >:; .. Q. .. t: = c ; ; 0 c c .!! ~ ra ra ra
.c -~ ~ -'= -~ Q. 'E; ..... ::!:::::-..... .E .. ·-~ ~~ Ill "i: .. c
Would the project: 0~ .. .. 0 ~u;~ .. ·-z O..VI -'VI
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 D ~ D D
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 D D ~ D 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 D D D ~
indirectly?
a) Less that Significant Impact 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. Additionally, the project's required mitigation as outlined in the Cultural Resources
section will preclude the elimination of important examples of major periods of California history or
prehistory, thus reducing impacts to less than significant. As such, the project does 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 Impact. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional
growth for the greater San Diego area and local General Plan land use policies are incorporated into
SANDAG projections. Based upon these projections, region-wide 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, ensure that development within the City will not
result in a significant cumulatively significant impact.
There are two regional issues that developments within the City of Carlsbad have the potential to have a
cumulatively significant impact on. These issues are air quality and regional circulation. As described
above, air quality would essentially be the same whether or not the development is constructed.
March 2016 -31-Initial Study
Project Name: YADA FAMILY FARMS SUBDIVISION
Project No: CT 15-11
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.
LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES
BI0-1-Prior to recordation of a final map or the issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs
first, the applicant shall pay habitat in-lieu mitigation fees consistent with the City's Habitat
Management Plan (HMP} for impacts to 3.7-acres of Agricultural Lands (Group-F Habitat}.
BI0-2-No habitat removal or construction noises in excess of 60 decibels shall be permitted during the
avian breeding seasons, which is generally defined as January P1 through September 151h. This
restriction may be waived if avian nesting surveys are conducted on all areas within 300 feet of
the proposed activity. The results of said survey shall be provided in a written report to the City
Planner for concurrence with conclusions and recommendations.
CUL-l-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.
e) Prior to issuance of building permits for the development of any future homes, a final summary
report shall be completed and submitted to the City Planner outlining the results of the mitigation
March 2016 -32-Initial Study
Project Name: YADA FAMILY FARMS SUBDIVISION
Project No: CT 15-11
program. The cultural resources monitoring 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. 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).
f) If any human remains are discovered, all construction activity in the immediate area of the discovery
shall cease immediately, and the Archaeological monitor shall notify the County Medical Examiner
pursuant to California Health and Safety Section 7050.5. Should the Medical Examiner determine
the human remains to be Native American; the Native American Heritage Commission shall be
contacted pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The Native American
Monitor (pursuant to Mitigation Measure CUL-2), in consultation with the Native American Heritage
Commission, shall inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American remains and may
recommend to the City of Carlsbad, and the project contractor, actions for treating or disposing,
with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. The recommendation
may include the scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items
associated with Native American burials. The project contractor shall provide a reasonable period
of time for salvage of discovered human remains before resuming construction activities.
CUL-2-The following tribal 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 Luiseno
Native American human remains inadvertently uncovered during the course of the project.
The agreement will outline the roles and powers of the Luiseno Native American monitors and
the archaeologist.
b) Any and all uncovered artifacts of Luiseno 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 Luiseno Native American monitor and the archaeologist can assess the nature
and significance of the find.
d) The Luiseno 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
March 2016 -33-Initial Study
Project Name: YADA FAMILY FARMS SUBDIVISION
Project No: CT 15-11
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 Luiseno Native American monitor must be present during any testing orcataloging
of those resources. If the archaeologist does not collect the cultural resources that are
unearthed during the ground disturbing activities, the Luiseno 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 Luiseno 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 Luiseno
Native American monitor that such fill material does not contain cultural resources.
PALE0-1-The following paleontological resource mitigation measures shall be implemented:
a} Prior to issuance of a grading permit the project developer shall retain the services of a qualified
paleontologist to carry out the mitigation program outlined herein. {A qualified paleontologist is
defined as an individual with a MS or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology that is experienced with
paleontological procedures and techniques, who is knowledgeable in the geology and
paleontology of San Diego County, and who has worked as a paleontological mitigation project
supervisor in the county for at least one year.} The applicant shall provide verification that a
qualified paleontologist meeting these requirements has been retained, and verification shall be
documented by a letter from the applicant and the paleontologist to the lead agency.
b) A qualified paleontologist shall be present at a pre-construction meeting to consult with the
grading and excavation contractors concerning excavation schedules, paleontological field
techniques and safety issues.
c) A paleontological monitor shall be onsite during all earthwork operations that extend greater than
4 feet below existing grade. (A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has
March 2016 -34-Initial Study
Project Name: YADA FAMILY FARMS SUBDIVISION
Project No: CT 15-11
experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials. The paleontological monitor shall
work under the direction of a qualified paleontologist.)
d) If fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall recover them. In
most cases this fossil salvage can be completed in a short period of time. However, some fossil
specimens (e.g., a complete large mammal skeleton) may require an extended salvage period. In
these instances the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall be allowed to temporarily
direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner. Because of
the potential for the recovering of small fossil remains, such as isolated mammal teeth, it may be
necessary to set up a screen-washing operation on the site.
e) Any fossil remains collected during monitoring and salvage shall be cleaned, repaired, sorted,
identified, and cataloged as part of the mitigation program.
f) Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos and maps, shall be deposited
(as a donation) in a scientific institution with permanent paleontological collections such as the
San Diego Natural History Museum. Donation offossils shall be accompanied by financial support
for initial specimen storage.
g) Prior to issuance of building permits for the development of any future homes, a final summary
report shall be completed and submitted to the City Planner outlining the results of the mitigation
program. This report shall include discussions of the methods used, stratigraphic section(s)
exposed, fossils collected, and significance of recovered fossils.
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 demolition of 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 Planning Division prior to the issuance of a
grading permit.
HAZ-3-Once structures have been removed, soils shall be visually evaluated for the presence of staining
in areas where fuel was formally stored. Any stained soil encountered during the redevelopment activities
shall be further evaluated by an experienced environmental consultant prior to removal.
HAZ-4 -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.
March 2016 -35-Initial Study
EARLIER ANALYSES
Project Name: YADA FAMILY FARMS SUBDIVISION
Project No: CT 15-11
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.
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 (EIR 13-02),
City of Carlsbad Planning Division, September 2015.
2. Carlsbad General Plan, City of Carlsbad Planning Division, dated September 2015, 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. A Biological Resources Survey Report for the Yada Family Trust Subdivision Project, APN 156-220-01,
Carlsbad, CA, Vincent N. Scheidt, Certified Biological Consultant, January 2016.
7. Cultural Resources Study for the Yada Family Farms Subdivision Project, Carlsbad, San Diego County,
California, ASM Affiliates, February 23, 2016.
8. Paleontological Resource Assessment, Yada Family Trust Project, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County,
California, Department of PaleoServices, San Diego Natural History Museum, January 11, 2016.
9. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, 1835 Buena Vista Way, Yada Family Trust, GeoSoils, Inc.
August 3, 2015.
10. Greenhouse Gas Assessment, Buena Vista 14 Residential Development, Carlsbad, CA, Ldn Consulting,
March 2016 -36-Initial Study
Inc., December 16, 2015.
Project Name: YADA FAMILY FARMS SUBDIVISION
Project No: CT 15-11
11. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Limited Phase II Soil Evaluation, 1835 Buena Vista Way,
Yada Family Trust, GeoSoils, Inc. August 19, 2015.
12. Preliminary Drainage Study, Yada family Farm Subdivision, 1835 Buena Vista Way, City of Carlsbad,
Bha, Inc. April4, 2016.
13. Priority Development Project Storm Water Mitigation Plan, Yada Family Farm Subdivision, 1835 Buena
Vista Way, Bha, Inc. April 5, 2016.
14. Noise Study, Buena Vista 14 (Yada) Single-family Residential Development, Carlsbad, CA, Ldn
Consulting, Inc., December 16, 2015.
March 2016 -37-Initial Study
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
PROJECT NAME: VADA FAMILY FARM SUBDIVISION
PROJECTNO: ~CT~lS~-~1~1------------------------------------------------------------
APPROVAL DATE/RESOLUTION N U M BER(S): ~O~ct~o~b~er!__:S!..l.,~2~0~16':!.1./...!...7.!::20!:!..::1!:..e&~7~20~2=----------------------------
(city of
Carlsbad
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
BI0-1 Prior to recordation of a final map or the issuance of a grading or
building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall pay habitat
in-lieu mitigation fees consistent with the City's Habitat Management
Plan (HMP} for impacts to 3.7-acres of Agricultural Lands (Group-F
Habitat).
BI0-2 No habitat removal or construction noises in excess of 60 decibels shall
be permitted during the avian breeding seasons, which is generally
defined as January 1st through September 15th. This restriction may be
waived if avian nesting surveys are conducted on all areas within 300
feet of the proposed activity. The results of said survey shall be
provided in a written report to the City Planner for concurrence with
conclusions and recommendations.
CUL-l 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
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.
GJ .. c a. c 0 ~ "' ...
1101: a: "' 110 ... c c GJ c c ;: ;: E 0 a! ~ l! _g .s~ c ... -"' 3: c;:..!! "' c c a. ;: a. E 0 0 GJ 0 .s::. GJ E ~ :t :to Ill >-
Prior to recordation of a PLN
final map or the issuance
of a grading or building
permit, whichever occurs
first
On-going PLN
Prior to issuance of PLN/ENG n/a
grading permit/on-going
Legend
PLN Planning Division
ENG Land Development Engineering Division
BLDG Building Division
Page 1 of 8
I I
MITIGATION MEASURE
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.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
PROJECT NAME: YADA FAMILY FARM SUBDIVISION
PROJECT NUMBER: CT 15-11
.. c. ~ .. c ·;;:
.~ c 0 :i
~t: ·-.. ._ E -~ t:
c '" 0 c. :i~
Ill c '" ;;:
c 0
~ ..c "'
c ~ ~ .., .. ~ ~ ·.::::a. ~.§
.J:! Oi E ~
Page 2 of 8
MITIGATION MEASURE
CUL-2
e. Prior to issuance of building permits for the development of any
future homes, a final summary report shall be completed and
submitted to the City Planner outlining the results of the mitigation
program. The cultural resources monitoring 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. 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).
f. 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.
The following tribal cultural resource mitigation measures shall be
implemented:
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
PROJECT NAME: YADA FAMILY FARM SUBDIVISION
PROJECT NUMBER: CT 15-11
~ Ill c ~ .., ~ ~ ~ ~c ~ ~
·2 ·E~ 6 ~ "' .s .st: c "'5lEI -t: ·c ·-ra 5: ;;: ..!:! "' o c a. o ·;: a. E ~ ~~ 6; ~.5 ~
Prior to issuance of
grading permit/on-going
PLN/ENG n/a
Page 3 of 8
MITIGATION MEASURE
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 Luiseno Native
American human remains inadvertently uncovered during the
course of the project. The agreement will outline the roles and
powers of the Luiseno Native American monitors and the
archaeologist.
b. Any and all uncovered artifacts of Luiseno 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 Luiseno Native American
monitor and the archaeologist can assess the nature and
significance of the find.
d. The Luiseno 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
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
PROJECT NAME: YADA FAMILY FARM SUBDIVISION
PROJECT NUMBER: CT 15-11
~ VI C > c 0 ; ~~ ~ ~ .5 c cu c c
B ·s.e ~ ]EI ~ '2 ·-"' ;: It=~ "' o c c. o ·.:: c. E
:iE ~~ ~ ~.§ ~
Page 4 of 8
MITIGATION MEASURE
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 Luiseno 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 Luiseno 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 Luiseno 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
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
PROJECT NAME: YADA FAMILY FARM SUBDIVISION
PROJECT NUMBER: CT 15-11
8. :g 6 ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~c ~ ~
·E ·EE g ~~ .. .s s~ c -gE -t: ·;: ·-"' !: o;:: ~ "' o "' c. o ·;:: c. E ~ ~~ 'Si ~.§ ~
Page 5 of 8
MITIGATION MEASURE
PALE0-1
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 Luiseno Native American monitor that such fill
material does not contain cultural resources.
The following paleontological resource mitigation measures shall be
implemented:
a. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the project developer shall
retain the services of a qualified paleontologist to carry out the
mitigation program outlined herein. (A qualified paleontologist is
defined as an individual with a MS or Ph.D. in paleontology or
geology that is experienced with paleontological procedures and
techniques, who is knowledgeable in the geology and paleontology
of San Diego County, and who has worked as a paleontological
mitigation project supervisor in the county for at least one year.)
The applicant shall provide verification that a qualified
paleontologist meeting these requirements has been retained, and
verification shall be documented by a letter from the applicant and
the paleontologist to the lead agency.
b. A qualified paleontologist shall be present at a pre-construction
meeting to consult with the grading and excavation contractors
concerning excavation schedules, paleontological field techniques
and safety issues.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
PROJECT NAME: YADA FAMILY FARM SUBDIVISION
PROJECT NUMBER: CT 15-11
8. ~ .. ·E 0 .'!: c 0 :E
Prior to issuance of
grading permit/on-going
~~ ·-.. . ~ ~ c .. 0 Q. :E~
PLN/ENG
"' c .. a: c 0 c ~ ..c "'
n/a
c ~ c
'tl ..
«! ~ 't: 1i ~.5
-E .. E ~
Page 6 of 8
MITIGATION MEASURE
c. A paleontological monitor shall be onsite during all earthwork
operations that extend greater than 4 feet below existing grade. (A
paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has
experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials. The
paleontological monitor shall work under the direction of a qualified
paleontologist.)
d. If fossils are discovered, the paleontologist (or paleontological
monitor) shall recover them. In most cases this fossil salvage can be
completed in a short period of time. However, some fossil
specimens (e.g., a complete large mammal skeleton) may require an
extended salvage period. In these instances the paleontologist (or
paleontological monitor) shall be allowed to temporarily direct,
divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely
manner. Because of the potential for the recovering of small fossil
remains, such as isolated mammal teeth, it may be necessary to set
up a screen-washing operation on the site.
e. Any fossil remains collected during monitoring and salvage shall be
cleaned, repaired, sorted, identified, and cataloged as part of the
mitigation program.
f. Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes,
photos and maps, shall be deposited (as a donation) in a scientific
institution with permanent paleontological collections such as the
San Diego Natural History Museum. Donation of fossils shall be
accompanied by financial support for initial specimen storage.
g. Prior to issuance of building permits for the development of any
future homes, a final summary report shall be completed and
submitted to the City Planner outlining the results of the mitigation
program. This report shall include discussions of the methods used,
stratigraphic section(s) exposed, fossils collected, and significance
of recovered fossils.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
PROJECT NAME: YADA FAMILY FARM SUBDIVISION
PROJECT NUMBER: CT 15-11
8. ~ .. ·= 0 .~ " 0 ::!:
... .. " " .. ·;:: E
B t:: ·-.. " ... 0 .. :!io
.,
" ..
0::
" 0 c ~ .c Ill
" .5! E " "C .. ~ ~ 'i: D. ~.5
.,
-1: .. E .. a:
Page 7 of 8
MITIGATION MEASURE
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 sball be submitted to the Planning
Division to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
HAZ-2 Prior to demolition of 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 Planning
Division prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
HAZ-3 Once structures have been removed, soils shall be visually evaluated for
the presence of staining in areas where fuel was formally stored. Any
stained soil encountered during the redevelopment activities shall be
further evaluated by an experienced environmental consultant prior to
removal.
HAZ-4 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.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
PROJECT NAME: YADA FAMILY FARM SUBDIVISION
PROJECT NUMBER: CT 15-11
"' "' c c. c 0 ~ .. ',j:: .. i5: .. .. .. c .. c c "' c c ... -~ ~ 0 a: e "' .... 0 c ... ;t:: ·-tO 3: ~.!! tO c c c. 0 'i: CL E 0 0 "' ..c "' E "' ::!!: ::i!:c II) >-o:r::
Prior to issuance of PLN/ENG n/a
grading permit
Prior to issuance of a PLN/ENG n/a
demolition permit
Prior to issuance of a PLN/ENG n/a
grading permit
Prior to grading PLN/ENG n/a
operations
During grading ENG n/a
operations
Page8of8
August 9, 2016
Mary Anne Viney
2796 James Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
{'city of
Carlsbad
SUBJECT: CT 15-11-YADA FAMILY FARM SUBDIVISION-RESPONSE TO MARY ANNE VINEY
REGARDING PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Dear Ms. Viney,
On July 5, 2016, during the public comment period for the Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) regarding the proposed Yada Family Farm Subdivision (CT 15~11), you made
the following observation via email:
"There is a church and school, called Beautiful Savior Lutheran Church and School, located at
3030 Valley Street, Carlsbad CA 92008, about 0.2 mile from the Yada Family Farm Subdivision
property, it would appear from google maps. I would like to know why the school does not
seem to be included in the impacts, since it appears to be within 0.25 miles of the Yada Family
Farm Subdivision property."
Staff has confirmed the oversight and discloses that the school mentioned above, located on the
southeast corner of Carlsbad Village Drive and James Drive, should have been identified under the Initial
_______ S_tudy--=-S_e_cti_o_o_jfJJJLc.,_as_itJs_l_ocatecLw1thio_a__Q.25-=-mile__[adius_oLthe__pmject_site._ln_addition,_w_e_aJso ______ _
confirm that a Montessori school, located on the southeast corner of Carlsbad Village Drive and
Highland Drive, should have been disclosed under the same section as being located with a 0.25-mile
radius of the project site. An Addendum will be prepared disclosing the above and will be included in
conjunction with the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program.
To clarify, the project will handle hazardous materials, substances and waste within a 0.25-mile of a
school as related to the grading and remediation of soil contamination from prior agricultural use. The
project itself, a residential subdivision, will not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances or waste. The "No Impact" statement shall be changed to a "Less than
Significant with Mitigation Incorporated". Proposed Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-4,
combined with standard construction best management practices (BMPs), adequately address the
treatment and handling of hazardous chemicals or materials found to exist onsite due to the project
site's prior agricultural use. As such, through implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through
HAZ-4, combined with standard construction BMPs, impacts are reduced and considered to be less than
significant.
We thank you for identifying this omission and hope that we have adequately addressed your comments
and concern. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (760) 602-4643,
or email at jason.goff@carlsbadca.gov.
JASON GOFF
Associate Planner
C: Rod Bradley, BHA, Inc., Suite L, 5115 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, CA 92010
Jim Yada, 31 Rolling Green, Irvine, CA 96260
Don Neu, City Planner
Van Lynch, Principal Planner
File co_ey
Community & Economic Development
Planning Division jl635 F?raday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314j760-602-4600 1760-602-8560 f I www.carlsbadca.gov
ADDENDUM TO THE
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
YADA FAMILY FARM SUBDIVISION
CT 15-11
EXHIBIT "ADDM"
The purpose of this Addendum is to disclose the proximity of two schools located within a 0.25-
mile radius of the project site as it relates to Initial Study Checklist, Section Vlll.c-Hazards and
Hazardous Materials that was prepared in association with the Yada Family Farm Subdivision
project, and to make a determination that this addition does not create any new significant
environmental effects, that none of the conditions contained in Section 15162 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have occurred, and that a subsequent Mitigated Negative
Declaration is not required.
The revision contained in this addendum revises previous analysis under Initial Study Checklist,
Section Vlll.c to identify the Beautiful Savior Lutheran Church & School, located on the southeast
corner of Carlsbad Village Drive and James Drive, and LePort Private School, located on the
southeast corner of Carlsbad Village Drive and Highland Drive, as being located with a 0.25-mile
radius of the project site. Additionally, this addendum revises previous statements to clarify that
the project will handle hazardous materials, substances and waste within a 0.25-mile of a school
as related to the grading and remediation of soil contamination from prior agricultural use.
However, the project itself, a residential subdivision, will not emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste. The "No Impact" statement
previously identified shall be changed to a "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated".
Proposed Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-4, combined with standard construction best
management practices (BMPs), adequately address the treatment and handling of hazardous
chemicals or materials found to exist onsite due to the project site's prior agricultural use. As
such, through the implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-4, combined with
standard construction BMPs, impacts are reduced and considered to be less than significant.
This revision is not considered substantial or significant as it relates to the environmental effects
associated with the project, or the conditions contained in Section 15162 of CEQA, and a
subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration is not required.