HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-07-19; Planning Commission; Resolution 7487PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.7487
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM TO ALLOW FOR STRUCTURAL REPAIRS AND
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALKS,
RETAINING WALLS, AND BEACH ACCESS STAIRWAYS LOCATED
ALONG THE WESTERN AREA OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD AND THE
BEACH PROMENADES FROM PINE AVENUE TO TAMARACK
AVENUE ON STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS
PROPERTY IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1
CASE NAME:
CASE NO.:
CITY OF CARLSBAD BEACH ACCESS REPAIRS
CDP2021-0011/HMP2021-0003 (DEV 2021-0049)
WHEREAS, City of Carlsbad, has filed a verified application regarding property
the State of California owns, described as Assessor Parcel Number 204-310-01-00, 203-250-15-
00, 760-166-58-00 ("the Property"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the CEQA and its implementing regulations (the State
CEQA Guidelines), Article 14 of the California Code of Regulations section 15000 et. seq., the
city is the Lead Agency for the project, as the public agency with the principal responsibility for
approving the proposed project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.1 and CEQA
Guidelines section 15063, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) shall be prepared when an
Initial Study (IS) identifies potentially significant project related impacts, but can be classified as
less than significant after incorporating mitigation actions that can be taken to avoid or mitigate
impacts to a point where clearly no significant impacts on the environment will occur; and
WHEREAS, the city prepared a Draft IS/MND, dated May 19, 2023 to consider,
identify and analyze all potential environmental impacts of the proposed project (State
Clearinghouse No. 2023050505, City Planning Case No. CDP 2021-0011, HMP 2021-0003). The
Draft IS/MND concluded that the project could result in potentially significant impacts
to Biology, Cultural/Paleontological, Geology/Soils, Noise, Transportation, and Tribal Cultural
Resources, and that all the potentially significant impacts of the project can be avoided or
reduced to insignificance with implementation of mitigation measures; and
WHEREAS, the city provided notice of the availability of the Draft IS/MND and its
intent to adopt an IS/MND to and sought comments from all interested individuals and
agencies on the Draft IS/MND as required by CEQA:
•Publishing "Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration" in the Coast
News newspaper on May 19, 2023.
•Submitting a notice to the County Clerk of the County of San Diego and the State
Clearinghouse for posting.
•Providing copies of the notice to individuals and organizations that previously submitted
written requests for the notice.
•Posting of the notice and Draft IS/MND on the City of Carlsbad Planning Department
webpage; and
WHEREAS, the Draft IS/MND was issued for a 30-day public review period, began
on May 19, 2023 and ended on June 19, 2023, in conformance with Public Resources Code
section 21091(b) and CEQA Guidelines sections 15072 and 15105(b). The city received four
comment letters during the 30-day public comment period. Comment letters were received
from the California Department of Fish and Game, California Department of State Parks, Rincon
Band of Luiseno Indians, and a private resident. A Response to Comments (RTC) document was
prepared and responds to all the comment letters received on the Draft IS/MND. The Draft
IS/MND together with the RTC, are collectively referred to herein as the Final IS/MND, State
Clearinghouse No.2023050505); and
WHEREAS, upon approving a project for which an IS/MND is adopted, the Lead
Agency must also adopt a Mitigation, Monitoring or Reporting Program (MMRP) pursuant to
Public Resources Code section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines section 15074(d); and
WHEREAS, the city duly noticed a public hearing of the City of Carlsbad Beach
Access Repairs Project on July 19, 2023, to consider adoption of the Final IS/MND and MMRP,
and the project. Evidence was submitted to and considered by the Planning Commission,
including, without limitation:
•Written information including all application materials and other written and graphical
information posted on the project website.
•· Oral testimony from city staff, interested parties, and the public.
•The Planning Commission staff report, dated July 19, 2023, which along with its
attachments, is incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth herein.
•Additional information submitted during the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines section 15074(b) states that prior to approving a
project, the Lead Agency must consider the proposed IS/MND together with any comments
received during the public review process; and
WHEREAS, the Record of Proceedings upon which the Planning
Commission bases its decision includes, but is not limited to: (1) the Final IS/MND and the
appendices and technical reports cited in and/or relied upon in preparing the Final IS/MND and
MMRP; (2) the staff reports, city files and records and other documents, prepared for and/or
submitted to the city relating to the Final IS/MND, MMRP, and the project itself; (3) the
evidence, facts, findings and other determinations set forth in herein; (4) the General Plan and
the Carlsbad Municipal Code; (5) all designs, plans, studies, data and correspondence submitted
to the city in connection with the Final IS/MND, the MMRP, and the project itself; (6) all
documentary and oral evidence received at public workshops, meetings, or hearings or
submitted to the city during the comment period relating to the Final IS/MND and MMRP
and/or elsewhere during the course of the review of the project itself; (7) all other matters of
common knowledge to the to the city, including, but not limited to, city, state, and federal laws,
policies, rules, regulations, reports, records and projections related to development within the
city and its surrounding areas.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad as follows:
1.Record and Basis for Action. The Planning Commission has considered the full record
before it, which includes the Record of Proceedings. Furthermore, the recitals set forth
above are found to be true and correct and material to this resolution; and are
incorporated herein by reference.
2.The IS prepared for the project identifies potentially significant effects on the
environment, but (A) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to
by, the Applicant before the proposed IS/MND were 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 (B), there is no substantial evidence, in light of the
whole record before the lead agency, that the project as reviewed may have a
significant effect on the environment.
3.Revisions were made to clarify information presented in the Draft IS/MND, and only
minor technical changes or additions have been made. These changes and additions to
the Draft IS/MND do not raise new important issues related to significant effects on the
environment. The modifications made to the Draft IS/MND in the RTC simply provide
minor clarifications and do not amount to substantial revisions requiring recirculation of
the IS/MND pursuant to Section 15073.5 of CEQA Guidelines.
4.A Final IS/MND has been prepared in compliance with all requirements contained in
CEQA, CEQA Guidelines, and Carlsbad Municipal Code.
5.In determining whether the proposed project has a significant effect on the
environment, the Planning Commission can base its decision on substantial evidence
and has complied with Public Resources Code section 21082.2 and CEQA Guidelines
section 15091(b). Mitigation measures were developed to reduce potential impacts to
Biology, Cultural/Paleontological, Geology/Soils, Noise, Transportation, and Tribal
Cultural Resources. The project Applicant has agreed to implement all mitigation
measures identified in the Final IS/MND to reduce all potentially significant
environmental impacts to a less-than-significant level, in accordance with the MMRP
(Attachment "A"). Mitigation measures incorporated as part of the project's conditions
of approval reduce impacts to a level less than significant, therefore an IS/MND is
appropriate for adoption. The Planning Commission hereby finds that after considering
the public comments received and the evidence and testimony before it, that the Final
IS/MND reflects the independent judgement of the city as the Lead Agency. The IS/MND
has been prepared in accordance and full compliance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines,
has been made available and circulated for review and comment by interested members
of the public and relevant agencies as required by law, and has been presented to,
reviewed and considered by this Planning Commission prior to the decision on the
project. Therefore, the Planning Commission does hereby find that on the basis of the
whole record before it, that there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised
and conditioned, will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning
Commission adopts the Final IS/MND (Attachment "A"), as the valid environmental
review for this project. The Planning Commission further finds that the Record of
Proceedings has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA
Guidelines, and that the findings related to the Final IS/MND, taken together, reflect the
independent judgment of the Planning Commission.
6.The custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of
proceedings upon which this decision is based is the Office of the City Clerk of the City of
Carlsbad, 1200 Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission directs the City Planner
to file the notice of determination required by Public Resources Code section 21152(a) within
five days after project approval.
Findings:
1.The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a.It has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration
CDP-2021-0011/HMP 2021-0003 the environmental impacts therein identified
for this project and any comments thereon prior to APPROVAL of the
project; and
a.The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance
with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State
Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of
Carlsbad; and
b.It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the
City of Carlsbad; and
c.Based on the IS/MND and comments thereon, there is no substantial
evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
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.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of
the City of Carlsbad, California, held on July 19, 2023, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Merz, Hubinger, Meenes, Stine
NAYES: Kamenjarin, Lafferty, Sabellico
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PETER MERZ, Chair
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MIKE STRONG
Assistant Director, Community Development
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Beach Access Repair Project
PROJECT NO. CDP 2021-0011/ HDP 2021-0002/ HMP 2021-0003 (DEV 2021-0049)
LEAD AGENCY:
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Contact: Lauren Ferrell
442.339.2558
July 2023
*References to Hillside
Development Permit
(HDP-2021-0002) were removed from the IS/MND document as a HDP is not required for
this Project.
Attachment A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.Project Name ................................................................................................................................... 1
2.Project No ........................................................................................................................................ 1
3.Lead Agency ..................................................................................................................................... 1
4.Project Applicant .............................................................................................................................. 1
5.Lead Agency Contact Person............................................................................................................ 1
6.Project Location ............................................................................................................................... 1
7.General Plan Land Use Designation ................................................................................................. 1
8.Zoning .............................................................................................................................................. 1
9.Project Description .......................................................................................................................... 1
10.Environmental Setting/Surrounding Land Uses ............................................................................. 11
11.Other Required Agency Approvals ................................................................................................. 13
12.California Native American Tribes Consultation ............................................................................ 13
13.Previous Environmental Documentation ....................................................................................... 13
14.Summary Of Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ............................................................. 13
15.Preparation .................................................................................................................................... 13
16.Determination ................................................................................................................................ 14
17.Environmental Determination ....................................................................................................... 14
18.Applicant Concurrence With Mitigation Measures ....................................................................... 14
19.Evaluation Of Environmental Impacts: .......................................................................................... 15
I.Aesthetics.............................................................................................................................. 17
II.Agricultural And Forestry Resources .................................................................................... 34
III.Air Quality ............................................................................................................................. 36
IV.Biological Resources ............................................................................................................. 42
V.Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................ 79
VI.Energy ................................................................................................................................... 88
VII.Geology and Soils .................................................................................................................. 92
VIII.Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................... 98
IX.Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...................................................................................... 103
X.Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................. 108
XI.Land Use And Planning ....................................................................................................... 116
XII.Mineral Resources .............................................................................................................. 119
XIII.Noise ................................................................................................................................... 120
XIV.Population and Housing ...................................................................................................... 130
XV.Public Services .................................................................................................................... 132
XVI.Recreation ........................................................................................................................... 136
XVII.Transportation .................................................................................................................... 137
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................................... 139
XIX.Utilities and Service Systems .............................................................................................. 144
XX.Wildfire ............................................................................................................................... 149
XXI.Mandatory Findings Of Significance ................................................................................... 152
20.List of Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................................... 159
21.Earlier Analysis Used and Supporting Information Sources ........................................................ 167
APPENDICES
Appendix A Visual Impact Analysis
Appendix B Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Study
Appendix C Biological Technical Report
Appendix D Cultural Resources Assessment
Appendix E Energy Calculation Memorandum
Appendix F Geotechnical Basis of Design
Appendix G Noise Study
Appendix H Shading Impact Analysis
Appendix I Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Appendix J Responses to Comments
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Location ....................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2: Project Vicinity ......................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3: Area of Potential Effects ........................................................................................................... 7
Figure 4: Proposed Upper Sidewalk Improvements – Typical Section – Pine Avenue to Maple
Avenue ..................................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 5: Proposed Upper Sidewalk Improvements – Typical Section – Maple Avenue to Cherry
Avenue ..................................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 6: Proposed Stairway Replacement – Typical Section and Platform Detail ................................ 10
Figure 7a: Existing Site Photographs ....................................................................................................... 19
Figure 7b: Existing Site Photographs ....................................................................................................... 20
Figure 8: Key View Location Map .......................................................................................................... 22
Figure 9a: Candidate Key Views .............................................................................................................. 23
Figure 9b: Candidate Key Views .............................................................................................................. 24
Figure 10a: Vegetation/Land Cover Survey Area Index Map – Modified Holland ..................................... 44
Figure 10b: Vegetation/Land Cover Survey Area Frame 1 – Modified Holland ......................................... 45
Figure 10c: Vegetation/Land Cover Survey Area Frame 2 – Modified Holland ......................................... 46
Figure 10d: Vegetation/Land Cover Survey Area Frame 3 – Modified Holland ......................................... 47
Figure 10e: Vegetation/Land Cover Survey Area Frame 4 – Modified Holland ......................................... 48
Figure 11a: Vegetation/Land Cover Survey Area Index Map – Manual of CA Vegetation ......................... 49
Figure 11b: Vegetation/Land Cover Survey Area Frame 1 – Manual of CA Vegetation ............................. 50
Figure 11c: Vegetation/Land Cover Survey Area Frame 2 – Manual of CA Vegetation ............................. 51
Figure 11d: Vegetation/Land Cover Survey Area Frame 3 – Manual of CA Vegetation ............................. 52
Figure 11e: Vegetation/Land Cover Survey Area Frame 4 – Manual of CA Vegetation ............................. 53
Figure 12: California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) ...................................................................... 57
Figure 13: Critical Habitat ........................................................................................................................ 59
Figure 14a: Vegetation/Land Cover Impacts Index Map – Modified Holland............................................ 67
Figure 14b: Vegetation/Land Cover Impacts Index Map Frames 1 and 2 – Modified Holland .................. 68
Figure 14c: Vegetation/Land Cover Impacts Index Map Frames 3 and 4 – Modified Holland .................. 69
Figure 14d: Vegetation/Land Cover Impacts Frame 5 – Modified Holland ............................................... 70
Figure 15a: Vegetation/Land Cover Impacts Index Map – Manual of CA Vegetation ............................... 71
Figure 15b: Vegetation/Land Cover Impacts Frames 1 and 2 – Manual of CA Vegetation ........................ 72
Figure 15c: Vegetation/Land Cover Impacts Frames 3 and 4 – Manual of CA Vegetation ........................ 73
Figure 15d: Vegetation/Land Cover Impacts Frame 5 – Manual of CA Vegetation ................................... 74
Figure 16: Hazardous Waste Sites Geotracker Radius Search ............................................................... 107
Figure 17: Trails Master Plan ................................................................................................................. 117
Figure 18: Airport Noise Compatibility .................................................................................................. 129
Figure 19: Fire Hazard Severity Zones ................................................................................................... 151
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Candidate Key View Visual Quality Descriptions .................................................................... 25
Table 2: Policies and Guidance ............................................................................................................ 29
Table 3: San Diego Air Basin Attainment Status ................................................................................... 37
Table 4: Ambient Air Quality Data ....................................................................................................... 38
Table 5: Estimated Maximum Mitigated Daily Construction Emissions ............................................... 40
Table 6: Estimated Operational Emissions ........................................................................................... 40
Table 7: Vegetation Communities/Land Cover Observed within the Survey Area ............................... 43
Table 8: Regulatory Framework ........................................................................................................... 61
Table 9: Vegetation Community Impacts ............................................................................................. 66
Table 10: HMP Mitigation for Impacts to Vegetation Communities ...................................................... 76
Table 11: Cultural Resources Sites Recorded within One-Half Mile of Project Site ............................... 83
Table 12: Construction Worker Gasoline Demand ................................................................................. 89
Table 13: Construction Equipment Diesel Demand ............................................................................... 89
Table 14: Estimated Construction Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................... 100
Table 15: Estimated Construction Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................... 101
Table 16: Estimated Annual Solid Waste and Water Use Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................... 101
Table 17: Estimated Annual Mobile Source Emissions of Greenhouse Gases...................................... 102
Table 18: Combined Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................................... 102
Table 19: Beneficial Use Descriptions .................................................................................................. 110
Table 20: Study Area Water Body Beneficial Uses ............................................................................... 111
Table 21: Relevant Supporting Policies ................................................................................................ 118
Table 22: Noise Monitoring Results ..................................................................................................... 123
Table 23: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels ...................................................................... 123
Table 24: Typical Maximum Construction Noise Levels at Various Distances from Project
Construction ......................................................................................................................... 124
Table 25: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment .......................................................... 127
Table 26: Socioeconomic Data ............................................................................................................. 130
Table 27: Normal Year Demand Comparison ....................................................................................... 145
Table 28: Single Dry Year Demand Comparison ................................................................................... 145
Table 29: Multiple Dry Years Demand Comparison ............................................................................. 145
1.PROJECT NAME: Beach Access Repair Project
2.PROJECT NO: CDP 2021-0011/ HDP 2021-0002/ HMP 2021-0003 (DEV 2021-0049)
3.LEAD AGENCY:
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
4.PROJECT APPLICANT:
City of Carlsbad, Public Works
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
5.LEAD AGENCY CONTACT PERSON: Izzak Mireles, Associate Planner, Phone: 442.339.2693 | Email:
izzak.mireles@carlsbadca.gov
6.PROJECT LOCATION: The Project area is regionally located in the northwestern portion of the City of
Carlsbad; refer to Figure 1, Project Location. Locally, the Project area extends along the western area
of Carlsbad Boulevard and the beach promenades from Pine Avenue at the north to Tamarack Avenue
at the south; refer to Figure 2, Project Vicinity.
7.GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Open Space (OS)
8.ZONING: Open Space (OS)
9.PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Beach Access Repair Project (Project) proposes structural repairs and
improvements to the existing concrete sidewalks, retaining walls, and beach access stairways located
along Carlsbad Boulevard. These stairways provide access along, and to the popular Carlsbad State
Beach. The Project consists primarily of repairing or replacing existing features in-kind, with the
exception of the upper sidewalk, which is proposed to be widened to accommodate the heavy traffic
of passive and active recreational user groups. The locations of the proposed sidewalk improvements
and repairs, proposed stairway replacements, as well as the proposed staging area for the Project is
shown in Figure 3. The Project is within City and California State Parks jurisdiction (State Parks).
The sidewalks and stairways were built in the 1980s and need repairs and/or replacements to maintain
structural integrity and safe public access. The proposed repairs were identified as being necessary
according to a structural condition assessment prepared by TTG Engineers in 2016 Replacement of the
elevated sidewalk would be a long-term solution (approximately 50 years) to the existing deteriorated
sidewalk, with the new beams anticipated to be designed with high-strength, corrosion resistant
precast concrete.
The proposed Project consists of two (2) major elements: The Upper Sidewalk Improvements and
Beach Access Stairway Replacements. The proposed actions associated with these elements are
outlined below:
•Upper Sidewalk Improvements:
o Replacement and widening by 2.5’ through the removal of a surface-mounted railing and
metal beam guardrail (1’ gained) and a 1.5’ sidewalk widening/extension to the west. This
upper sidewalk is heavily trafficked by various user groups and the proposed widening
was identified by the City as being critically important to allow for adequate space for
these user groups. The total upper sidewalk width would be increased from 9’ to 11’-4”
to 11’-10” in the proposed condition.
o Replacement of the existing upper sidewalk surface-mounted railing between Pine
Avenue and Tamarack Avenue with a side-mounted railing to provide an additional extra
sidewalk walking width.
•Beach Access Stairway Replacements:
o Replacement of five (5) stairways
Replacement of four (4) existing elevated access stairways and railings in same
configuration (size and shape) at each access location. The replacements will utilize
the existing reinforced concrete pile that support the stairway landings. The
handrails edging the stairs and platforms would be replaced with similar railings and
handrails that meet applicable codes and would include downward facing lighting.
Replacement of one (1) on-grade access stairway and railings at Tamarack Avenue
within the footprint of the existing stair curbs and walkway.
o Replacement of existing sandbags with short retaining wall extensions (no more than 20
linear feet) at the base of the Maple, Sycamore, and Hemlock Avenues stairways to
control soil sloughing from the bluff from impacting use of the stairs.
o Installment of new under rail accent lighting at the elevated access platforms and the
Tamarack Avenue on-grade access stairway.
The Project also includes miscellaneous improvements in the Project vicinity such as replacement of
the existing streetlight poles along the beach side of Carlsbad Boulevard from Pine Avenue to Tamarack
Avenue and replacement of the existing sidewalk and railing around the beach shower along the upper
sidewalk near the Tamarack Avenue restroom. In total there are 14 existing LED streetlights; 11 of the
existing streetlights are double mast and three (3) are single mast. All the existing streetlights will be
replaced with in-kind double mast streetlights within the footprints of the existing streetlights.
UPPER SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS
Upper sidewalk improvements will increase the walking width from 9’ to 11’- 4” to 11’-10” through the
removal of a surface-mounted railing and metal beam guardrail (approximately 1’ walking width
gained) and a 1.5’ sidewalk widening/extension to the west. Removal of the metal beam guardrail is
allowable per the American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Roadside
Design Guide due to the low posted road speed and clear-zone width at top of slope.
The existing sidewalk varies from north to south within the Project area; therefore, the proposed
structural solutions vary as well. Specifically, the sidewalk between Pine Avenue and Maple Avenue is
supported by concrete piles, while the sidewalk from Maple Avenue to Cherry Avenue is on-grade. The
proposed sidewalk improvements within these two (2) discrete sections of the upper sidewalk are
detailed below:
•Pine Avenue to Maple Avenue: The pile-supported sidewalk would be extended to the west on
a cantilever via a number of proposed structural elements (e.g., new concrete beams, see
Figure 4).
•Maple Avenue to Cherry Avenue: The on-grade sidewalk with retaining wall would be extended
to the west via a new concrete wall and pier (Figure 5).
The two (2) elevated upper sidewalk overlooks at Walnut Avenue, between Chestnut Avenue and
Maple Avenue, and the on-grade upper sidewalk overlook at Acacia Avenue would be replaced but are
not proposed to be widened. The surface-mounted railing at each of the elevated overlooks would be
replaced with new side-mounted railing, and the on-grade overlook railing would be replaced with new
surface-mounted railing, which would provide additional usable space.
BEACH ACCESS STAIRWAY REPLACEMENT
The beach access stairways between the upper and lower sidewalks consist of five (5) stairways; four
(4) sets of elevated stairs supported on reinforced concrete platforms near the intersections of
Carlsbad Boulevard and Sycamore Avenue, Carlsbad Boulevard and Maple Avenue, Carlsbad Boulevard
and Cherry Avenue, Carlsbad Boulevard and Hemlock Avenue, and one (1) set of stairs on-grade at
Tamarack Avenue. The four (4) sets of elevated stairways have deteriorated to the point of needing
continual maintenance to remain safe and are proposed to be completely replaced, including railing,
concrete platforms, and stair treads. The large, reinforced piles supporting the elevated stairway
platforms on the bluff would remain in place to be reused for supporting the new platforms of similar
dimensions (Figure 6). The one (1) on-grade stairway at Tamarack Avenue is proposed to be completely
replaced, with new stair curbs, railing, and landings within its existing configuration.
CONSTRUCTION PHASING AND METHODS
Construction of the proposed Project will be phased to maintain public access to the beach over the
duration of the Project. Stairway replacements will be conducted in phases, completing one (1)
staircase replacement at a time to reduce impacts to public access. Construction signage will be posted
to inform the public of the closed stairway and to direct the public to use the other stairways along
Carlsbad Boulevard or the beach access ramp at Pine Avenue, which will remain open throughout the
duration of the Project. The entire length of Carlsbad State Beach will remain open throughout the
duration of the Project as to not impede access or use of the beach/coastal areas for the public as well
as City and State Park staff.
Proposed work will not impact existing underground utilities and no relocation of utilities will be
necessary to complete the Project. When performing work on the Tamarack Avenue stairway, the
Tamarack Avenue restroom will remain open throughout the duration of construction, with the
exception of a brief window during which repairs are being made to the adjacent sidewalk. The
associated temporary restroom closure is estimated at about two (2) weeks. During this brief period,
signage would be posted directing beachgoers to the Pine Avenue restroom, approximately 2,000’ to
the north (a short 6-minute walk). This approach will maintain convenient access to restroom facilities,
while avoiding the potential for disturbance, odor, vandalism, and visual impacts associated with
installing a temporary restroom facility along Carlsbad Boulevard. Details will be coordinated among
the City and State Parks during final design and construction.
The construction staging and laydown area is proposed within a grassy area/lawn along the west side
of Carlsbad Boulevard between Juniper Avenue and Hemlock Avenue (see Figure 3). The total square-
footage for the construction staging area would be approximately 8,000 square feet and would be the
same for construction Phases 1 and 2. Of the 35 on-street parallel parking stalls along Carlsbad
Boulevard, approximately 15-20 parking stalls will be temporarily closed off to accommodate the
construction staging area. There are two (2) ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) parking stalls located
at the intersection of Hemlock Avenue and Carlsbad Boulevard that will not be impacted by
construction activities. The staging and laydown area was minimized as much as possible to allow for
efficient construction while limiting impacts to beach access, parking, and coastal resources. The
Tamarack Avenue parking lot, located at the south end of the Project area, will remain open during the
Project.
The construction of the Project is estimated to take approximately 20 months. The first phase of Project
activities would occur over a 9-month period (estimated September 2023 to May 2024). The first phase
of the Project includes the beach access stairways located at Sycamore, Maple, and Tamarack Avenues.
The second phase of Project activities is expected to occur over a 6-month period (estimated
September 2024 to February 2025), which includes the stairways located at Cherry Avenue and
Hemlock Avenue. No onsite work is proposed during the summer months (i.e., between Memorial Day
and Labor Day) to minimize recreational impacts. The anticipated construction equipment that may be
required for the Project include the following: air compressor, crane, backhoe, bobcat tractor, concrete
mixer, bulldozer, jack hammer, pavement roller, excavator, street sweeper, man lift, dump truck,
generator set, loader, and welder. Silt fences will be used to surround all demolition activities, including
concrete removal and excavation, to capture debris to protect the beach. Temporary construction
fencing will also be used to secure the Project site and avoid impacts to the public.
Work is anticipated to take place along the western edge/shoulder of Carlsbad Boulevard; no beach
work is proposed. Given the proposed work area, the Project is anticipated to require traffic control
measures during construction, such as the temporary closure of lanes along Carlsbad Boulevard. During
the demolition and replacement of the elevated sidewalk, the two (2) southbound lanes will need to
be shut down. Traffic control measures necessary to accomplish the work will require a traffic control
permit from the City and will be the responsibility of the selected contractor. Traffic control measures
will not take place during summer months (Memorial Day through Labor Day) as to avoid impacts to
the peak summer tourist season. Lateral and vertical beach access will be maintained to Carlsbad State
Beach during all construction activities.
Figure 1
Project Location Source: USGS; December 2020.
BEACH ACCESS REPAIR PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 2
Project Vicinity
Source: ESRI; December 2020.
BEACH ACCESS REPAIR PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 3
Area of Potential Effects
Source: USGS; 2014.
BEACH ACCESS REPAIR PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 4
Proposed Upper Sidewalk Improvements - Typical Section - Pine Avenue to Maple Avenue
Source: GHD and KTUA; June 2022.
BEACH ACCESS REPAIR PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 5
Proposed Upper Sidewalk Improvements - Typical Section - Maple Avenue to Cherry Avenue
Source: GHD and KTUA; June 2022.
BEACH ACCESS REPAIR PROJECT
/ŶŝƟĂů^ƚƵĚLJͬDŝƟŐĂƚĞĚEĞŐĂƟǀĞĞĐůĂƌĂƟŽŶ
&ŝŐƵƌĞϲ
Proposed Stairway Replacement - Typical Section and Platform Detail
^ŽƵƌĐĞ͗',͖:ƵŶĞϮϬϮϮ͘
10.ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING/SURROUNDING LAND USES:
UPPER SIDEWALK AREA
The Project area is situated within a coastal urbanized setting within the northwest portion of the City
of Carlsbad. The Project area is generally bounded by Pine Avenue to the north, Tamarack Avenue to
the south, Carlsbad Boulevard to the east and the Pacific Ocean to the west. The existing land uses
within the Project area are mostly higher density residential uses with some visitor commercial land
uses. The northern most end of the Project area is adjacent to the Carlsbad Village Planning Area and
south of the Barrio Planning Area. Both Planning Areas have special planning design consideration goals
and policies.
The Project area is within state-designated Coastal Zone and included within the City’s Local Coastal
Program (LCP). The LCP establishes goals, policies, site development, and design standards to guide
land use development and community improvements within the Coastal Zone. A focus of the LCP is to
increase coastal access and recreation opportunities within the Coastal Zone. Additionally, the Project
is consistent with the Carlsbad Community Vision, which is community value system that is comprised
of nine (9) core values that were established through public engagement efforts across the City of
Carlsbad. Core values include items such as “small town/beach community feel,” neighborhood
revitalization/community design, open space, and the natural environment, as well as the importance
of walking and biking connectivity. The Carlsbad Community Vision also helps guide City decision
making, including the City’s General Plan. The Project aims to restore safe public access along Carlsbad
State Beach, which will improve the overall aesthetics and connectivity of the beach corridor and will
promote community use of the area for recreation.
The City General Plan Mobility Element identifies Carlsbad Boulevard as an Identity Street. The intent
of an Identity Street is to safely move all modes of travel while enhancing mobility for pedestrians and
bicyclists. Vehicle speeds should be managed to promote safe pedestrian and bicycle movement.
Additionally, Carlsbad Boulevard intersects with Village streets that are also designed to safely move
all modes of travel while enhancing mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists and promote pedestrian and
bicycle connectivity through short block lengths.
The Project is consistent with the City of Carlsbad’s Sustainable Mobility Plan, which aims to improve
transportation-related safety, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and expand community
mobility. Key elements of the Sustainable Mobility Plan consist of improvements to community
infrastructure, including bicycle lanes and pedestrian walkways, and connected walking, cycling, transit,
and trail networks. The Project will expand sidewalk areas along Carlsbad Boulevard, which will
promote walking and bicycling to and from the City’s coastal areas, which will promote connectivity
city-wide. Additionally, the City’s Pedestrian Master Plan aligns well with the Project and encourages
multiple modes of travel for pedestrians, including walking and promoting greater circulation across
the City.
The proposed Project is consistent with California Department of Parks and Recreation Carlsbad State
Beach General Plan (1984). This Plan provides a framework to manage natural resources within the
State Park and maintain recreational uses for public enjoyment. The policies and guidance provided in
the Carlsbad State Beach General Plan outline the importance of protecting and restoring public
facilities in the Coastal Zone. The proposed Project aims to combat the impacts from erosion on the
public access stairways and walkways along Carlsbad Beach Boulevard and provide safe access to the
public for continued use of the beach for recreation.
COASTAL BLUFF AREA
Elevations within the Survey Area range from approximately 13’ to 52’ above mean sea level (MSL). The
Project area is situated along a westerly facing coastal bluff. The bluff face is approximately 30’ in height
with an overall gradient varying from about 1.5:1 to 2.5:1. Localized areas with over-steepened and
near vertical gradients exist on the bluff face. Vegetative cover along the bluff face ranges from no
vegetation coverage, exposed soil to dense vegetative growth. Vegetation communities include a mix
of non-native vegetation and native vegetation, including Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, Maritime
Succulent Scrub, Alkali Meadow, Disturbed Southern Willow Scrub, and Disturbed Coastal and Valley
Fresh Marsh. Irrigation lines and sprinkler heads are located along the bluff face.
A concrete walkway is located along the west side of Carlsbad Boulevard along the top of the coastal
bluff from Pine Avenue to the south of Tamarack Avenue, for a length of approximately 3,200’. The
majority of the bluff-top walkway, between Pine Avenue and just north of Maple Avenue, consists of
precast concrete panels supported on regularly spaced transverse pier-supported foundation
elements. South of Maple Avenue, the majority of the bluff-top walkway consists of concrete slabs on-
grade. An asphalt concrete parking lot and adjacent asphalt walkway exist at the top of the bluff at the
northern end of the Project area. A concrete slab-on-grade walkway exists along the toe of the coastal
bluff (from about 200’ south of the western terminus of Pine Avenue to about 200’ south of Tamarack
Avenue). The “Carlsbad Seawall” exists along the westerly side of this bluff-toe walkway. The sand
beach of Carlsbad State Beach exists westerly of the seawall. Northerly of Hemlock Avenue, an
approximately 3.3’ high bluff-toe wall exists along the easterly side of this walkway. Southerly of
Hemlock Avenue, a low concrete curb defines the easterly edge of the concrete walkway.
Public beach access stairways descend the coastal bluff at the Project site. Four (4) of these access
stairways are elevated on pier supports. These four (4) stairways are located at the approximate
western termini of Hemlock, Cherry, Maple, and Sycamore Avenues. Additionally, a stairway descends
from the restroom near Tamarack Avenue that consists of on-grade concrete stairs and another set of
on-grade concrete stairways which descend from Carlsbad Boulevard approximately 650’ south of
Tamarack Avenue. The existing building/structure located at Tamarack Avenue warrants additional
environmental study for impacts to historical resources. (Any building that is at least 45 years of age or
older warrants at least initial consideration under the Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological
Resources Guidelines (2017)). The southern restroom facility has been studied and the report
concluded the site is potentially eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources
(CRHR) and National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (California Department of Parks and Recreation,
2016). The proposed Beach Access Repair Project proposes no modifications to the restroom structure,
nor would the Project impair those physical characteristics that convey the resource’s historical
significance for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Project improvements
adjacent to the restroom would be limited to in-kind replacement of stairs and walkways sufficient to
ensure public safety and would not negatively affect the historic integrity of the restroom. Additional
details are presented in Environmental Checklist Item V. Cultural Resources of this IS/MND.
Two (2) restroom facilities exist in the Project area. The northern restroom is located at the toe of the
bluff between Pine Avenue and Walnut Avenue. The southern restroom facility is located near the top
of the bluff at the western terminus of Tamarack Avenue. The condition of the concrete walkways,
stairways, and walls varies. Some portions of the sidewalks, access stairways, and walls show
deterioration such as concrete spalling, cracking, and exposed rebar, likely due to the corrosive nature
of the marine environment. In places, soil has eroded away from foundation elements.
11.OTHER REQUIRED AGENCY APPROVALS (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreements):
•Coastal Development Permit
•California State Parks Encroachment Permit
12.CALIFORNIA NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES CONSULTATION.
a.Have California Native American Tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Project area
requested consultation pursuant to public resources code section 21080.3.1?
☒Yes ☐No
b.If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance
of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
☒Yes ☐No
13.PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: Please see Appendices section of this document.
14.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.
☐Aesthetics ☐Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐Public Services
☐Agriculture & Forestry Resources ☐Hazards/Hazardous Materials ☐Recreation
☐Air Quality ☐Hydrology/Water Quality ☒Transportation
☒Biological Resources ☐Land Use & Planning ☒Tribal Cultural Resources
☒Cultural Resources ☐Mineral Resources ☐Utilities/Service Systems
☐Energy ☒Noise ☐Wildfire
☒Geology/Soils ☐Population & Housing ☒Mandatory Findings of Significance
15.PREPARATION: The Initial Study for the subject Project was prepared by:
Charles Smith, AICP, LEED AP Date
Business Group Leader, Natural Resources & Impact Assessment
GHD
16.DETERMINATION: (to be completed by Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
☐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.
☐I find that the proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
☐I find that the proposed Project MAY have 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. An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
☐I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a)
have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant
to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Project. Therefore,
nothing further is required.
17.ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The initial study for this Project has been reviewed and the
environmental determination, indicated above, is hereby approved.
May 16, 2023
Eric Lardy, City Planner Date
18.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.
Signature Date
Lauren Ferrell
Associate Engineer
19.EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1.A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to Projects like the one involved (e.g., the Project falls
outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on
Project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the Project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a Project-specific screening analysis).
2.All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as Project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3.Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant
with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially
Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4.“Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant
Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they
reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as
described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).
5.Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process,
an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b.Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on
the earlier analysis.
c.Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the Project.
6.Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources
for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared
or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where
the statement is substantiated.
7.Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used, or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8.The explanation of each issue should identify:
a.The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b.The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
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.
I. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the
Project:Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Les
s
t
han
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
wi
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
In
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?☐☐☒☐
b)Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic
highway?
☐☐☐☒
c)In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings?
(Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the Project is in an urbanized area, would the
Project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
☐☐☐☒
d)Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?☐☐☐☒
The following analysis is based on a Visual Impact Analysis prepared by KTUA in June 2022 and is presented
in Appendix A. The Visual Impact Analysis evaluated a larger conceptual construction Project that included
the proposed Project activities. Beyond the proposed Project, the larger conceptual Project evaluation
included an eastward expansion of the coastal bluff trail into Carlsbad Boulevard and proposed
modifications to the center landscape median on Carlsbad Boulevard. The analysis for the proposed Project
incorporates relevant information and analysis from the Visual Impact Analysis to evaluate potential
aesthetic impacts.
EXISTING AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT
The proposed Beach Access Repair Project work would occur along the walkways and access ways
paralleling Carlsbad Boulevard on the east and Tamarack Beach on the west. Carlsbad Boulevard is a four-
lane roadway in the Project area, with bike lanes on each side, striped turning pockets, and, at the north
end of the Project, a vegetated median. See Photograph 1 of Figure 7a, Existing Site Photographs, which
includes the bike lanes, a pedestrian crossing, and the vegetated median in the background.
The east side of Carlsbad Boulevard is bordered mostly by single and attached residential units, a few
restaurants, and a hotel. Most of the structures are two (2) or three (3) stories tall, with some single-story
houses among them. The lots generally are fronted by trimmed shrubs and small palm trees, generally not
extending above 6’ tall, and a concrete sidewalk. The streetscape is divided at semi-regular intervals by
driveways and roadways that are used for circulation access and parking.
At the south end of the Project, Tamarack Avenue provides vehicular access to the Tamarack State Beach
parking lot near the beach level. North of this roadway is a single-story restroom building, the only building
visible west of Carlsbad Boulevard from the street in the Project area. A pedestrian ramp and staircase
provide access to the lower walkway and beach next to this restroom building. Photograph 2 of Figure 7a
is a view of this restroom building from the short ramp that provides access to the building and the beach
access stairs. There is an additional restroom building at the north end of the Project site, located at the
lower walkway area that is not visible from Carlsbad Boulevard.
Between Tamarack Avenue and Cherry Avenue (a little less than 1,000’), an area of turf separates the upper
walkway from Carlsbad Boulevard, and a secondary walkway meanders away from and back toward the
cliff-edge walkway. Photograph 3 of Figure 7a is a view of this area and also shows the typical buildings
aligned along the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard in the background. A few trees are growing west of
Carlsbad Boulevard, south of Cherry Avenue. Between Cherry Avenue and Pine Avenue, at the north end
of the Project area, the walkway directly borders the west side of Carlsbad Boulevard.
Between the below and upper walkways there is a steep slope vegetated mostly with native shrubs. The
slope is approximately a 2:1 slope where 2’ of horizontal distance occurs for every 1’ of vertical height
change. Native shrubs cover most of the slope, with some brown exposed soil visible in places, a bit darker
and warmer than the beach sand. There is very little vegetation beneath the staircases or under the areas
that have exposed sidewalk cantilevers. Photograph 4 of Figure 7a illustrates a typical view of the slope
from an overlook along the upper sidewalk. Photograph 5 of Figure 7b, Existing Site Photographs, shows
the bare and eroded soil near one of the stairways.
A 42” tall aluminum, vertical picket railing extends along the length of the upper walkway to protect
pedestrians from the steep slope above the beach. This railing is visible in Figure 7a. Three (3) wider
concrete overlooks extend west from the walkway between Pine Avenue and Cherry Avenue. Five (5)
staircases provide access to the lower walkway and the beach. The four (4) elevated staircases each have
hexagonal landings and three (3) flights of stairs with metal vertical-picket railings similar in appearance to
the railing along the upper walkway. Photograph 6 of Figure 7b is a view of one of these elevated staircases,
viewed from the upper platform. Seen from the lower walkway, the elevated staircases are large, geometric
structures contrasting with the natural slope. The hexagonal landings are supported by large, round,
concrete pillars and fins. The concrete steps are supported by metal stringers painted pale blue. The
vertical-picket railings are also painted pale blue. Photograph 7 of Figure 7b is a view of the northernmost
staircase, as seen from the lower walkway.
The lower walkway is separated from the beach by a substantial concrete seawall approximately 3’ above
the walkway surface. A smaller 8” thick concrete wall retains the lower edge of the slope on the inland side.
These walls are integrally-colored a warm brown to match the color of the adjacent natural slope.
Occasional openings in the seawall provide access stairways to the sandy beach abutting it on the west.
From the lower walkway, the beach and ocean extending westward is the main visible feature. The
vegetated slope east of the lower walkway shields views of the road above and the buildings east of
Carlsbad Boulevard. Photograph 8 of Figure 7b shows a view of the lower walkway and natural slope. The
walkway and walls, the stairways, two (2) lifeguard stations, and the restroom buildings are the only
structures generally visible from the lower walkway. Some houses to the north are visible in the distance,
but do not dominate the view.
Viewer Groups
The proposed Project consists primarily of improvements of pedestrian access and resources, and
pedestrians would be the primary viewer group that would directly and closely see the Project. Changes to
the upper sidewalk would also be visible to motorists on Carlsbad Boulevard, as well as bicyclists and local
residents.
BEACH ACCESS REPAIR PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Existing Site Photographs Figure 7a
Photograph 1
Looking north along Carlsbad Boulevard.
Photograph 2
Looking south down the pedestrian ramp at the restroom building
at the south end of the project area.
Photograph 3
Turf area between Tamarack Avenue and Cherry Avenue.
Photograph 4
The vegetated slope as seen from the upper sidewalk.
BEACH ACCESS REPAIR PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Existing Site Photographs Figure 7b
Photograph 5
The vegetated slope as seen from the lower walkway.
Photograph 6
Access stairs between upper sidewalk and lower walkway, look
down.
Photograph 7
Access stairs between upper sidewalk and lower walkway, looking
up.
Photograph 8
Lower walkway and slope.
Pedestrians are the largest viewer group, as they would have access to both the upper sidewalk and the
staircases. Users of the walkways are both residents and visitors, and whether passing through while
exercising or pausing to spend time on the beach, most pedestrian users are sensitive to the views of the
ocean from this area and also notice a great deal of detail. The ocean and beach are the predominant scenic
features, followed by the natural slope and park areas. Pedestrians have the highest viewer exposure to all
aspects of the Project and are also highly aware of the scenery and visual environment.
Residents of buildings bordering the eastern edge of Carlsbad Boulevard, while fewer in number than
pedestrians, are also highly aware of the scenic resources and sensitive to any changes to the visual
environment. Residents have stationary views and long exposures, whereas pedestrians have shorter
exposure and dynamic views as they move through the Project area. However, for most residents the
position of the foreground compared to the middle-ground of the beaches and nearshore line areas and
the background, the viewer’s attention is not on the walkways and railing.
Motorists and bicyclists on Carlsbad Boulevard are aware of the scenic resources around them, but also
must pay attention to the roadway. Their sensitivity is less than pedestrians and residents as a result. They
also are not able to see most of the stairways, and thus their exposure is lower as well.
Visual Analysis
Analysis of a project’s impacts to visual resources is based on the identification of the change that would
occur when a project proposes to alter the existing visual character of the environment. The amount of
contrast between the proposed elements and the existing setting is critical in determining how visible and
how much of a contrast would occur with the setting. The viewers’ response to the change must also be
considered in the impact analysis. If the project is hidden from sight and would only be seen by the project
users and the contrast with the setting is not high, viewer response would likely be minimal. However, if
the project is visible to many existing viewers, the viewers’ sensitivity to and expectations of the view may
place more importance on the change. The change must alter either the visual character or quality, or the
viewers’ response to the view, in a negative way to be considered an adverse impact. The viewer response
to project changes is determined by viewer exposure and viewer sensitivity to the project. The resulting
visual impact is determined by combining the severity of resource change with the degree to which people
are likely to oppose or be disturbed by the change.
Key Views
It is not possible to analyze every public view or public vantage point in a viewshed; therefore,
representative or “key views” with the highest degree of visibility, the greatest number of viewers, and the
potential to reveal the most change due to the proposed Project have been chosen to illustrate the
potential Project impacts. A total of 10 “Candidate Key Views,” were identified. The location of each public
view or public vantage point is shown on Figure 8, Key View Location Map, and Figures 9a and 9b, Candidate
Key Views. Table 1, Candidate Key View Visual Quality Descriptions, provides a summary of each view.
BEACH ACCESS REPAIR PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 8
Key View Loca����
Source: KTUA; December 2020.
BEACH ACCESS REPAIR PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 9a
Candidate Key Views
Candidate Key View 1 - Southbound view from the west side of
Carlsbad Boulevard north of Pine Avenue.
Candidate Key View 3 - Westbound view from the north side
of Pine Avenue at Carlsbad Boulevard.
Candidate Key View 5 - Southbound view from west side of
Carlsbad Boulevard crosswalk at Pine Avevenue.
Candidate Key View 2 - Southbound view from the west side of
Carlsbad Boulevard north of Pine Avenue.
Candidate Key View 4 - Southbound view from east side of
Carlsbad Boulevard at Pine Avenue.
Candidate Key View 6 - Southbound view from west side of
Carlsbad Boulevard crosswalk at Pine Avevenue.
BEACH ACCESS REPAIR PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 9b
Candidate Key Views
Candidate Key View 7 - Northward view from west side of
Carlsbad Boulevard south of Pine Avenue.
Candidate Key View 9 - Northbound view from west side of
Carslbad Boulevard at Walnut Avenue.
Candidate Key View 8 - Northwestward view from east side of
Carlsbad Boulevard at Walnut Avenue.
Candidate Key View 10 - Northbound view from center of
Carlsbad Boulevard at Walnut Avenue.
Table 1: Candidate Key View Visual Quality Descriptions
Candidate
Key View
No.
Existing Visual Quality
Viewer
Groups
Viewer
Sensitivity
Viewer
Exposure
Distance from
Viewer to
Proposed
Project
Vividness Unity Intactness
1 Moderately
High
Moderately
High
Moderately
High
Pedestrians,
Bicyclists,
Motorists
Moderately
High High Middle ground
to background
2 Moderately
High
Moderately
High
Moderately
High
Pedestrians,
Bicyclists,
Motorists
Moderately
High High Middle ground
3 High Moderately
High
Moderately
High
Pedestrians,
Bicyclists,
Motorists
Moderately
High High Middle ground
4 High Moderately
High
Moderately
High
Pedestrians,
Bicyclists,
Motorists
Moderately
High High Background
5 Moderate Moderately
High
Moderately
High
Pedestrians,
Bicyclists,
Motorists
Moderately
High High Foreground to
Middle ground
6 Moderately
High
Moderately
High
Moderately
High
Pedestrians,
Bicyclists,
Motorists
Moderately
High High Foreground to
Middle ground
7 Moderate Moderately
High
Moderately
High
Pedestrians,
Bicyclists,
Motorists
Moderately
High High Foreground to
Middle ground
8 Moderately
High
Moderately
High
Moderately
High
Pedestrians,
Bicyclists,
Motorists
Moderately
High High Middle ground
to background
9 Moderately
High
Moderately
High
Moderately
High
Pedestrians,
Bicyclists,
Motorists
Moderately
High High Foreground to
Middle ground
10 Moderately
High
Moderately
High
Moderately
High
Pedestrians,
Bicyclists,
Motorists
Moderately
High High Foreground to
Middle ground
Source: KTUA, Visual Impact Analysis for the Carlsbad Beach Access Repair; December 2020.
REGULATORY SETTING
California Coastal Act
The proposed Project is located within the State of California Coastal Zone, defined in the California Coastal
Act as the area between the seaward limits of the state’s jurisdiction and 1,000 yards landward from the
mean high tide line. In Carlsbad, the Coastal Zone boundary generally encompasses the area east of the
Pacific Ocean to El Camino Real, including the lower and upper walkways, the steep natural slopes of the
coastal bluff between, and Carlsbad Boulevard. The California Coastal Act (Public Resources Code Section
30000 et seq.) authorizes the state of California to regulate development within the State Coastal Zone.
While scenic resources are not specifically mentioned, Public Resources Code Section 30001.5 calls to
“protect, maintain, and, where feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone
environment and its natural and artificial resources.”
City of Carlsbad Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone
The City of Carlsbad’s Municipal Code includes a Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.40). The
Coastal Zone restrictions (21.40.135) within this Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone would apply to Carlsbad
Boulevard. Under the Coastal Zone Restrictions, “public views and panoramas shall be maintained.” The
restrictions apply mainly to sites considered for development, “so as not to obstruct or otherwise damage
the visual beauty of the coastal zone.”
City of Carlsbad Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone
The Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone (21.204.010) “is intended to provide land use regulations
along the coastline area including the beaches, bluffs, and the land area immediately landward thereof.
The purpose of the coastal shoreline development zone is to provide for control over development and
land use along the coastline so that the public’s interest in maintaining the shoreline as a unique
recreational and scenic resource, promoting public safety and access, and in avoiding the adverse geologic
and economic effect of bluff erosion, is adequately protected. (Ord. NS-365 § 22, 1996).”
The Overlay Zone outlines permitted and conditional uses, requirements for public access, and requires
site plan reviews with the following criteria: “The site plans required by Section 21.204.090 shall be
reviewed and evaluated by the city planner for conformance with the following criteria:
A.Coastal Development Regulations. All elements of the proposed development are consistent with
the intent and purpose of the coastal shoreline development overlay zone.
B.Appearance. Buildings and structures would be so located on the site as to create a generally
attractive appearance and be agreeably related to surrounding development and the natural
environment.
C.Ocean Views. Buildings, structures, and landscaping would be so located as to preserve to the
degree feasible any ocean views as may be visible from the nearest public street.
D.Retention of Natural Features. Insofar as is feasible, natural topography and scenic features of the
site would be retained and incorporated into the proposed development.
E.Grading and Earth-Moving. Any grading or earth-moving operations in connection with the
proposed development are planned and would be executed so as to blend with the existing terrain
both on and adjacent to the site.
F.Public Access. The policies of the local coastal program pertaining to public access have been
carried out” (Ord. CS-164 § 10, 2011; Ord. NS-365 § 22, 1996).
City of Carlsbad General Plan Land Use Element and Community Design Element
The Land Use and Community Design Element of the City of Carlsbad Master Plan includes Community
Character and Design policies, including Beach Access and Waterfront Activity policies that identify
opportunities to increase public park land and beach access along Carlsbad Boulevard coastal corridor,
particularly in the Project area. Policy 2-P.53, “Plan and design Carlsbad Boulevard and adjacent public land
(Carlsbad Boulevard coastal corridor).” These principles include the following related to aesthetics and
visual character:
A.Carlsbad Boulevard shall become more than a road. This transportation corridor shall provide for
recreational, aesthetic and community gathering opportunities that equal the remarkable
character of the land.
B.Open views are desirable and important to maintaining the character of the area. Preservation and
enhancement of views of ocean, lagoons, and other water bodies and beaches shall be a high
priority in road, landscaping, and amenity design and development.
A signature scenic corridor shall be created through design that honors the coastline’s natural
beauty. The resulting improvements would capture the ‘essence’ of Carlsbad, making it a special
place for people from throughout the region with its natural beauty and vibrant public spaces.
Properly carried out, the realigned boulevard would maximize public views and encourage
everyone to slow down and enjoy the scenery.
City of Carlsbad General Plan Open Space Classification
Framework Category 1: Open Space for Preservation of Natural Resources (plant and animal habitat; nature
preserves; beaches and bluffs; wetland and riparian areas; canyons and hillsides; water features such as
lagoons and streams).
Framework Category 2: Open Space for Managed Production of Resources (forestry; agriculture;
aquaculture; water management; commercial fisheries; and major mineral resources).
Framework Category 3: Open Space for Outdoor Recreation (school recreation areas; public parks and
recreation areas; greenways; trails; campgrounds; golf courses; and equestrian facilities).
Framework Category 4: Open Space for Aesthetic, Cultural, and Educational Purposes (lands with scenic,
historical, and cultural value; land use buffers; open space that marks entries to the City from surrounding
communities and to major developments and neighborhoods within the City; greenbelts providing
separation from surrounding communities; and museums, arboreta, zoos, and botanical gardens).
City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program
Developed in conformance with the Coastal Act, the City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program outlines policies
to “Protect, maintain, and where feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the Coastal Zone
environment and its natural and man-made resources.” The specific policy related to Visual/Land Resources
includes the implementation of the Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone (discussed above), and the
preservation of natural vegetation on steep slopes. Within the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Policy 7-
13, Visual Access states, “Visual access over more than 80% of the Carlsbad coastline is unobstructed
because of public ownership. No future public improvements which would obstruct this visual access shall
be permitted.”
Carlsbad State Beach General Plan
California Department of Parks and Recreation developed the Carlsbad State Beach General Plan (1984) to
ensure the public has access to the California coast and provide recreational community benefits to the
maximum extent possible while preserving significant natural and cultural values. There is a shortage of
facilities for almost every popular coastal recreational activity and a need to maintain access to allow for
popular coastal pursuits including fishing, swimming, sightseeing, camping, and beach day use. The Plan
also highlights the California Shoreline Erosion Protection Policy, which notes that where structures or areas
of public use are threatened (i.e., deteriorated stairways and walkways), the state shall promote and
support remedial projects to retain shoreline characteristics and provide recreational benefits to the extent
possible. As such, the proposed Project objectives to provide unobstructed and safe coastal/beach access
to allow for recreational uses in the Coastal Zone align well with the Carlsbad State Beach General Plan.
Additionally, the Interpretive Element of the Carlsbad State Beach General Plan is consistent with the
proposed Project as this Element outlines the importance of facilities to enhance the recreational
experience available at Carlsbad State Beach. The Interpretive Element calls out the day-uses (surfing,
swimming, fishing, beach access, wildlife and nature viewing) and emphasizes the need to protect and
maintain these uses for the public accessing Carlsbad State Beach.
PROJECT IMPACTS
a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less than Significant Impact: For purposes of determining significance under CEQA, a scenic vista is defined
as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general
public. The visual setting within which the proposed Project is located in a highly scenic area. The ocean
views immediately west of the Project are highly valued, and all areas of the Project site provide ocean
vistas. None of the proposed Project features would obstruct the available scenic vistas. The replaced
vertical-picket railing along the upper walkway may have smaller pickets, and thus may increase the
visibility of the ocean views when looking at and through it. The proposed walkway improvements would
increase scenic viewing opportunities for the public. Furthermore, the scope of the Project includes four
(4)elevated access stairways in the same configuration as each access stairway location. Stairway, railings,
and related work would repair and replace existing features in-kind, providing structural support for
continued access (physical and visual) along and to the popular Carlsbad State Beach.
Project construction is expected to occur in two (2) phases. The first phase is anticipated to take nine (9)
months, occurring from September 2023 to May 2024, and consists of three (3) beach stairways. The
second phase is expected to commence in September 2024, consisting of two (2) beach stairways, and take
six (6) months to complete (ending in February 2025). Construction activities are not expected to be
performed during the summer (Memorial Day to Labor Day) to avoid impacts to the summer tourist
seasons. However, during construction, some public views along the walkways would not be accessible,
which could temporarily affect scenic vista views. The scenic vista views would be briefly obstructed by
construction activity. However, the construction activities would be short-term and once completed,
existing scenic views within the Project area would be returned to their pre-construction condition. The
Pine Avenue ramp access would remain open during the course of Project construction.
From beach level, construction equipment including work trucks, excavator, crane, concrete mixer, and
construction screening and signage would be periodically visible to beachgoers at each of the staircases
and along the Carlsbad Boulevard during construction activities. However, as the Project will be completed
in phases, equipment and crews will shift along Carlsbad Boulevard and as construction phases are
completed, equipment will be removed from the Project area, which will reduce the amount of visible
construction equipment to the public. These visual impacts that can be seen from beach level as well as
from the top of the bluff along Carlsbad Boulevard are temporary and upon completion of construction,
will be removed and the Project area will be returned to pre-construction conditions. As such, potential
impacts on scenic vistas would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b)Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,
and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact: The State Scenic Highway Program was established to preserve and protect scenic highway
corridors from change that would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to state highways. State
highways may be designated as scenic depending upon how much of the natural landscape can be seen by
travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes upon the
traveler’s enjoyment of the view. A scenic highway is designated under the State Scenic Highway Program
when a local jurisdiction adopts a scenic corridor protection program. Existing law provides Caltrans with
full possession and control of all state highways. This legislation places the Scenic Highway Program under
the stewardship of Caltrans. The California Street and Highways Code also established standards for
undertaking the development and designation of official scenic highways and assigns responsibility for the
development of scenic highways to local jurisdictions. The State Scenic Highway system designates
highways that are either eligible for designation as a State Scenic Highway or have been designated as such.
No Scenic Highways have been officially designated in the City of Carlsbad.
Additionally, the proposed Project is not located near or within a local scenic highway corridor. The area
surrounding the Project does not support rock outcroppings or historic buildings, and the proposed Project
would not impact any such resources.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
c)In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point). If the Project is in an urbanized area, would the Project
conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
No Impact: The proposed Project features would create minor changes to the visual environment,
character, and quality of public views of the site and its surrounding. The Project would increase more
slightly open views of the ocean resulting from the proposed changes and would increase in the quality of
the public views available in the area. According to the City of Carlsbad General Plan Open Space
Classification, the proposed beach access repairs are not within or adjacent to the Framework Category 4
Open Space Areas for Aesthetic, Cultural, and Educational Purposes. Framework Category 4 are lands with
scenic, historical, and cultural value and Project activities will not interfere with or overlap with these areas.
As such, the proposed Project would not impact any such resources and none of the proposed changes
would degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
The proposed Project is located in an urbanized area, and the applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality have been listed above in Regulatory Setting. The Project’s conformance with
these regulations is outlined in Table 2, Policies and Guidance. The Project would not conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality and would result in no impact since the
Project is in conformance with all applicable policies.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
Table 2: Policies and Guidance
California Coastal Act Policy Project Conformance Conforms?
Regulation: Public Resources Code Section 30001.5
City of Carlsbad (a) Protect, maintain, and, where
feasible, enhance and restore the
overall quality of the coastal zone
environment and its natural and
artificial resources.
The proposed Project maintains the
quality of the coastal zone and
enhances the artificial resources by
repairing and upgrading access.
Yes
Regulation: Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21.40 S-P Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone
21.40.135 Coastal Zone Restrictions
Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 21.204 Coastal
Shoreline Development
Overlay Zone
21.204.100 Site Plan
Review Criteria
Within the coastal zone, existing public
views and panorama shall be
maintained. Through the individualized
review process, sites considered for
development shall be conditioned so as
to not obstruct or otherwise damage
the visual beauty of the coastal zone. In
addition to the above, height
limitations and see-through
construction techniques should be
employed. (Ord. NS-365 § 5, 1996).
The proposed Project does not obstruct
views of the ocean or coastal area and
maintains panoramic public views.
Yes
California Coastal Act Policy Project Conformance Conforms?
General Plan Chapter 2.0
Land Use and
Community Design
The site plans required by Section
21.204.090 shall be reviewed and
evaluated by the city planner for
conformance with the following
criteria:
A.Coastal Development Regulations.
All elements of the proposed
development are consistent with
the intent and purpose of the
Coastal Shoreline Development
Overlay Zone.
B. Appearance. Buildings and
structures will be so located on the
site as to create a generally
attractive appearance and be
agreeably related to surrounding
development and the natural
environment.
C. Ocean Views. Buildings, structures,
and landscaping will be so located
as to preserve to the degree
feasible any ocean views as may be
visible from the nearest public
street.
D. Retention of Natural Features.
Insofar as is feasible, natural
topography and scenic features of
the site will be retained and
incorporated into the proposed
development.
E. Grading and Earth-Moving. Any
grading or earth-moving operations
in connection with the proposed
development are planned and will
be executed so as to blend with the
existing terrain both on and
adjacent to the site.
A.The proposed Project includes
mainly replacement of existing
features, and thus are consistent
with the intent and purpose of the
coastal shoreline development
overlay zone, to include
conformance with public access,
grading, excavation, and
geotechnical design criteria.
B. The proposed Project does not
include any structures. It does
include the replacement of the
shrubs that may disturbed by
construction with vegetation of the
same type.
C. The proposed Project features
(railings and vegetation) would not
obstruct ocean views from the
nearest public street (Carlsbad
Boulevard).
D. The natural topography of the slope
between below the upper sidewalk
area would be retained, and not be
disrupted or disturbed by the
proposed Project features.
E. The proposed Project includes only
earthmoving to repair existing
erosion and would blend with
existing terrain. If temporary
impacts to native vegetation (i.e.,
coastal sage scrub, maritime
succulent scrub) occurs, the
affected areas will be revegetated to
reflect pre-construction conditions.
Additionally, the Project aims to
keep improvements consistent with
the current land use at the site. The
beach access stairway replacements
include in-kind repairs, and the
replacement stairs and railings will
maintain the same configuration
(size and shape) at each access
location.
Yes
California Coastal Act Policy Project Conformance Conforms?
F. Public Access. The policies of the
local coastal program pertaining to
public access have been carried out.
(Ord. CS-164 § 10, 2011; Ord. NS-
365 § 22, 1996)
F. The proposed Project retains and
enhances public access to the
coastal area.
General Plan Chapter 4.0
Open Space,
Conservation, and
Recreation
Open Space Classifications:
A.Category 1: Open Space for
Preservation of Natural Resources
(plant and animal habitat; nature
preserves; beaches and bluffs;
wetland and riparian areas; canyons
and hillsides; and water features
such as lagoons and streams)
B.Category 2: Open Space for
Managed Production of Resources
(forestry; agriculture; aquaculture;
water management; commercial
fisheries; and major mineral
resources)
C.Category 3: Open Space for
Outdoor Recreation (school
recreation areas; public parks and
recreation areas; greenways; trails;
campgrounds; golf courses; and
equestrian facilities)
D.Category 4: Open Space for
Aesthetic, Cultural, and Educational
Purposes (lands with scenic,
historical and cultural value; land
use buffers; open space that marks
entries to the city from surrounding
communities and to major
developments and neighborhoods
within the city; greenbelts providing
A.The proposed Project will take place
within the footprint of the existing
staircases and walkways along
Carlsbad Blvd and open space for
natural resources, including habitat
for species along the coastal bluff
will not be adversely impacted.
Temporary impacts from
construction may occur along the
bluff (i.e., clearing of vegetation),
however, mitigation measures,
including revegetation efforts, will
be implemented to avoid impacts to
open spaces for natural resources.
B.The Project will not have an impact
on managed production of
resources. The Project area contains
recreational areas along the beach
and bluff area on Carlsbad Blvd and
no commercial production of natural
resources occurs in this area or
within the Project site.
C.The proposed Project is within an
area of open space for outdoor
recreation. The Project area
overlaps with a State Park and
contains areas of public recreation
(i.e., walking, sightseeing, biking)
along Carlsbad Blvd and Carlsbad
State Beach Park. The pedestrian
walkways that transect the Project
area will be improved to provide
safe access for the public to view
and use beach/coastal resources.
This Project is consistent with this
open space classification and will
not negatively impact open space
for outdoor recreation.
D.The Project area is not in an open
space area for Aesthetic, Cultural,
and Educational purposes as per the
City’s General Plan Category 4 Open
Space Classification. The Project is in
an area of Carlsbad State Beach that
contains scenic beauty and valuable
open space for recreation, however,
Project activities would not impact
Yes
California Coastal Act Policy Project Conformance Conforms?
separation from surrounding
communities; and museums,
arboreta, zoos, and botanical
gardens)
any Category 4 Open Space areas,
and none are located adjacent to
the Project area.
Local Coastal Program
Policy 7-13 Visual Access
2-P.53 Plan and design Carlsbad
Boulevard and adjacent public land
(Carlsbad Boulevard coastal corridor)
according to the following guiding
principles:
a. Carlsbad Blvd shall become more
than a road. This transportation
corridor shall provide for
recreational, aesthetic and
community gathering opportunities
that equal the remarkable character
of the land.
d. Open views are desirable and
important to maintaining the
character of the area. Preservation
and enhancement of views of
ocean, lagoons, and other water
bodies and beaches shall be a high
priority in road, landscaping, and
amenity design and development.
i. A signature scenic corridor shall be
created through design that honors
the coastline’s natural beauty. The
resulting improvements would
capture the ‘essence’ of Carlsbad,
making it a special place for people
from throughout the region with its
natural beauty and vibrant public
spaces. Properly carried out, the
realigned boulevard would
maximize public views and
encourage everyone to slow down
and enjoy the scenery.
a.The proposed Project widens the
sidewalk along Carlsbad Blvd to
increase recreational opportunities
and would retain the existing bike
lanes.
d. The proposed Project preserves
ocean views.
i. The proposed Project increases
public pedestrian access by
widening the upper sidewalk,
enhancing the opportunity for all to
have access to ocean vistas.
Yes
Carlsbad State Beach
General Plan
Provides a framework for natural and
cultural resources conservation,
facilities development, recreational
priorities, and Interpretation of these
features within State Park Land. Directs
the long-range development and
management of the State Park by
providing broad policies and program
guidance.
A.Policy for Shoreline Erosion
Protection – Applies to planning
and improving State Park System
units. Situations where structures
or areas of public use are
threatened should the state resort
to funding or approving remedial
A. Project is consistent with this policy
as substantial erosion-related
deterioration has impacted the
stairways and walkways at Carlsbad
State Beach and repairs are required
to maintain safe public access to
Yes
California Coastal Act Policy Project Conformance Conforms?
projects. When necessary, projects
should restore natural processes,
retain shoreline characteristics, and
provide recreational benefits to the
extent possible.
B.Interpretive Element - Importance
of facilities to enhance the
recreational experiences and uses
available at Carlsbad State Beach.
ensure coastal-dependent
recreational activities.
B.Project conforms with this
component of the Carlsbad State
Beach General Plan as the Project
aims to restore and improve public
access stairways and walkways along
Carlsbad Blvd to ensure safe access
for recreational users.
d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
No Impact: The proposed Project would not include any changes to lighting along the upper sidewalk. The
replaced stairway handrails and landing platform railings may include low-level lighting shining from the
upper rail onto the stairs and the landing platform. If included, the down-lighting would be a new source
of light seen from the stairs, landings, and lower walkway. The down-lighting at the top of the stairs where
they meet the upper sidewalk may be visible from street-level at five (5) locations along Carlsbad Boulevard,
and by nearby residences as well. The proposed lighting would be a low lumen light addition that would
not create any nuisance glare or lighting spill over beyond a few feet radius.
Carlsbad Boulevard and the upper sidewalk are currently lit with tall, double-fixture streetlights. The
proposed railing down-lighting would be noticeable, but would not increase the levels of night lighting in
the Project area nor would they dominate, spill over, or combine with other incompatible light sources. The
railing down-light fixtures have the potential to be visible from the lower walkway, and to create night
lighting when viewed from below. However, the lights would be low output, shielded LEDs, with integrated
materials designed to diffuse the light and reduce any glare.
The proposed down-lighting, if included in the Project, would not create a new source of substantial light
or glare, would not adversely affect nighttime views, and would result in a low visual impact. Metal surfaces
on site features such as the aluminum railing have the potential to reflect sunlight in such a way as to
disrupt views. The potential for glare can be reduced by using a non-polished, matte anodized finish on the
new replacement railing. The proposed features, therefore, would not create a new source of glare in
daytime views, and would be limited to a low visual impact.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
II.AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES*
Would the Project:Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
wi
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Inc
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
☐☐☐☒
b)Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a WilliamsonAct contract?☐☐☐☒
c)Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land
(as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), or
timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
☐☐☐☒
d)Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-
forest use?☐☐☐☒
e)Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to
non-agricultural use?☐☐☐☒
*In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1997 (LESA) prepared by the California Department ofConservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. There are no lands present inCarlsbad that meet the state’s definition of forest land (Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (Public Resources Code section 4526), or production (Government Code 51104(g)). Therefore, questions related to forestry resources will haveno impacts.
PROJECT IMPACTS
a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact: According to the City’s General Plan Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element and
the State of California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, there is no Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance within the Project area. Therefore, the construction and
operation of the proposed Project would not result in adverse impacts to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland
or Farmland of Statewide Importance.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b)Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact: According to the City of Carlsbad Zoning Code, the Project area is not zoned for agriculture land
uses. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with any lands zoned for agriculture uses.
Additionally, the Project area is not under a Williamson Contract.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
c)Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources
Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
No Impact: The proposed Project would not cause a rezone of lands that are zoned for forest land or
timberland.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
d)Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact: The Project area does not contain forest land resources. Therefore, implementation of the
proposed Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
e)Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-
forest use?
No Impact: The Project area and surrounding properties do not contain farmland or timberland. The
construction and operation of the proposed Project would be confined to the Project area and would not
cause any onsite or offsite conversion of farmland or forest land to non-agriculture uses or non-forest uses.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
III.AIR QUALITY*
Would the Project: Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
wi
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
In
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
Le
s
s
T
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?☐☐☒☐
b)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?☐☐☒☐
c)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?☐☐☒☐
d)Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adverselyaffecting a substantial number of people?☐☐☒☐
*Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the determinations in this section.
The following analysis is based on an Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Study and is presented in Appendix B. The
Air Quality Analysis/Greenhouse Study evaluated a larger construction project that included the proposed
Project activities along with a proposed eastward expansion of the coastal bluff trail into Carlsbad Boulevard
and proposed modifications to the center landscape median in Carlsbad Boulevard. Because the proposed
Project involves less construction activities compared to the former proposed project and would not result
in greater air quality impacts, the analysis Air Quality/Greenhouse Study is adequate to evaluate the
proposed Project impacts.
BACKGROUND ANALYSIS
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 (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2),
particulate matter (PM10, and PM2.5), lead and toxic air contaminants. Additionally, volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx), are precursors to the formation of ground-level O3. The
Project area is within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). The following table shows the SDAB designations for
criteria pollutants. As of November 2017, the SDAB is designated in attainment for all criteria pollutants
under the NAAQS with the exception of O3 (8-hour) and PM10, which is listed as unclassifiable. The SDAB is
currently designated nonattainment for O3 and particulate matter, PM10 and PM2.5, under the CAAQS. It is
designated as attainment under CAAQS for CO, NO2, SO2, lead and sulfates; refer to Table 3, San Diego Air
Basin Attainment Status.
Table 3: San Diego Air Basin Attainment Status
Criteria Pollutant Federal Designation (NAAQS) State Designation (CAAQS)
Ozone (8-Hour) Nonattainment Nonattainment
Ozone (1-Hour) 1 Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide Attainment Attainment
PM10 Unclassifiable2 Nonattainment
PM2.5 Attainment Nonattainment
Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Attainment
Lead Attainment Attainment
Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide No Federal Standard Unclassified
Visibility No Federal Standard Unclassified
Notes:
1 The federal 1-hour standard of 12 pphm was in effect from 1979 through June 15, 2005. The revoked standard is referenced
here because it was employed for such a long period and because this benchmark is addressed in State Implementation Plans.
2 At the time of designation, if the available data does not support a designation of attainment or nonattainment, the area is
designated as unclassifiable.
Source: San Diego County Air Pollution Control District. Attainment Status for Criteria Pollutants. Available at:
https://www.sdapcd.org/content/sdapcd/planning/attainment-status.html
PROJECT IMPACTS
a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less than Significant Impact: The Project site is in the SDAB. The periodic violations of NAAQS in the SDAB,
particularly for O3 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 adopted by the San Diego County Air Pollution Control
Board in 1992, is updated on a triennial basis, with the most recent revision prepared in December 2016.
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. As noted, the RAQS relies on information from California Air Resources Board (CARB) and
SANDAG, including projected growth in the County, mobile, area, and all other source emissions to project
future emissions and determine from those data the strategies necessary for the reduction of stationary
source emissions through regulatory controls. Projects that propose development that would be consistent
with the growth anticipated by the General Plan would be consistent with the SIP, Air Quality Management
Plan (AQMP), and RAQS. The proposed Project involves enhancement pedestrian sidewalk and coastal
access repair and improvements. The Project does not introduce new housing or employment land use
activities and would not induce growth or cause the local population to increase beyond what is planned
within the region. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the SIP, AQMP, and RAQS. Potential
Impacts related to conflicts with or obstructions to applicable air quality plan would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b)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?
Less than Significant Impact: The San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) monitors air quality
conditions at locations throughout the SDAB. For this analysis, data from the Camp Pendleton monitoring
station located west of the site were used to characterize existing ozone and nitrogen oxide concentrations
in the general vicinity of the Project site. No PM10 or PM2.5 data from the Camp Pendleton monitoring
station is available post-2015. PM10 data from the Beardsley Street monitoring station (2016) in the City of
San Diego is shown for 2016. A summary of the data recorded at the Camp Pendleton monitoring station
from 2016 through 2018 is presented in Table 4, Ambient Air Quality Data.
Table 4: Ambient Air Quality Data
Pollutant 2016 2017 2018
Ozone, ppm – First High 8-Hour Average (2015 Standard) 0.073 0.081 0.068
Number of days of above 2015 standard (>0.070 ppm) 4 4 0
Nitrogen Dioxide, ppm – First High National 72.0 73.0 48.0
Nitrogen Dioxide, ppm – First High State 72.0 73.0 48.0
Days above the State standard (>0.18 ppm) 0 0 0
Days above the national standard (>100 ppb) 0 0 0
Particulate Matter <10 microns, µg/m3 First High Federal 49 * *
Particulate Matter <10 microns, µg/m3 First High State 51 * *
Estimated number of days greater than national 24-hour standard
(>150 µg/m3) 0 * *
Estimated number of days greater than state standard (>50 µg/m3) 0 * *
Particulate Matter <2.5 microns, µg/m3 First High National * * *
Particulate Matter <2.5 microns, µg/m3 First High State 34.4 * *
Number of samples of Federal exceedances (>12 µg/m3) 0 * *
Camp Pendleton Monitoring Location: 21441 West B Street
Note – PM10 and PM2.5 data obtained from 1110 Beardsley Street Monitoring Station, City of San Diego.
*Data insufficient to determine the value.
Source: California Air Resources Board. 2016, 2017, 2018 Annual Air Quality Data Summaries available at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php
A significant adverse air quality impact could occur when a project individually or cumulatively interferes
with progress toward the attainment of the ozone standard by generating emissions that equal or exceed
the established long-term quantitative thresholds for pollutants or exceed a state or federal ambient air
quality standard for any criteria pollutant.
The SDAPCD does not provide quantitative thresholds for determining the significance of construction or
mobile source-related projects. However, the SDAPCD does specify Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA)
trigger levels for new or modified stationary sources (SDAPCD Rules 20.1 through 20.3). If these incremental
levels are exceeded, an AQIA must be performed. Although these trigger levels do not generally apply to
mobile sources or general land development projects, for comparative purposes, these levels may be used
to evaluate the increased emissions from these projects. For CEQA purposes, the screening level thresholds
can be used to demonstrate that a project’s total emissions would not result in a significant impact to air
quality. Because the AQIA screening thresholds do not include VOCs, the screening level for VOCs used in
this analysis are from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which generally has
stricter emissions thresholds than SDAPCD. The thresholds shown below are used in this analysis to
determine whether the improvement program has the potential to violate an air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation:
•Carbon Monoxide (CO) - 550 pounds/day;
•Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) - 250 pounds/day;
•Particulate Matter (PM10) - 100 pounds/day;
•Particulate Matter (PM2.5) - 67 pounds/day;
•Sulfur Oxides (SOX) - 250 pounds/day; and
•Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)/Reactive Organic Gases (ROGs) - 75 pounds/day.
CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Project construction would generate temporary air pollutant emissions. These impacts are associated with
fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) from soil disturbance and exhaust emissions (NOx and CO) from heavy
construction vehicles. For purposes of estimating emissions, it was assumed that the improvements would
be constructed consecutively over the course of nine (9) months. As noted, construction would generally
consist of concrete repair/replacement, installation of new stairs, and related improvements as detailed in
the Project description.
Site preparation, grading, and stair installation would involve the greatest concentration of heavy
equipment use and the highest potential for fugitive dust emissions. The Project would be required to
comply with SDAPCD Rules 52 and 54, which identify measures to reduce fugitive dust and would be
required to be implemented. Therefore, the following conditions, which are required to reduce fugitive
dust in compliance with SDAPCD Rules 52 and 54, were included in California Emission Estimator Model
(CalEEMod) analysis for site preparation and grading phases of construction.
1.Minimization of Disturbance. Construction contractors should minimize the area disturbed by
clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
2.Soil Treatment. Construction contractors should treat all graded and excavated material, exposed
soil areas and active portions of the construction site, including unpaved onsite roadways to
minimize fugitive dust. Treatment shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, periodic watering,
application of environmentally safe soil stabilization materials, and/or roll compaction as
appropriate. As referenced, watering would be implemented for dust control. Watering will be
performed as often as necessary, and at least twice daily, preferably in the late morning and after
work is done for the day. Note – it was assumed watering would occur two (2) times daily for
modeling purposes.
3.Soil Stabilization. Construction contractors should monitor all graded and/or excavated inactive
areas of the construction site at least weekly for dust stabilization. Soil stabilization methods, such
as water and roll compaction, and environmentally safe dust control materials shall be applied to
portions of the construction site that are inactive for over four (4) days. If no further grading or
excavation operations are planned for the area, the area shall be seeded and watered until
landscape growth is evident, or periodically treated with environmentally safe dust suppressants,
to prevent excessive fugitive dust.
4.No Grading During High Winds. Construction contractors should stop all clearing, grading, earth
moving, and excavation operations during periods of high winds (20 miles per hour or greater, as
measured continuously over a 1-hour period).
5.Street Sweeping. Construction contractors should sweep all onsite driveways and adjacent streets
and roads at least once per day, preferably at the end of the day, if visible soil material is carried
over to adjacent streets and roads.
Construction is assumed to begin in September 2023 and be completed by May 2025. Table 5, Estimated
Maximum Mitigated Daily Construction Emissions, summarizes the estimated maximum daily emissions of
pollutants occurring during the construction period assuming the most intensive use of heavy equipment.
As shown in Table 5, construction of the proposed Project would not exceed the SDAPCD regional
construction emission thresholds for daily emissions. Thus, the Project construction would not conflict with
the SIP, RAQS or AQMP, violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or Projected violation,
result in a cumulatively considerable increase in ozone or particulate matter emissions, or expose receptors
to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Table 5: Estimated Maximum Mitigated Daily Construction Emissions
Construction Phase Maximum Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
2021-2022 Maximum lbs/day 2.7 21.8 20.4 0.04 1.2 1.0
SDAPCD Regional Thresholds 75 250 550 250 100 67
Threshold Exceeded 2019 No No No No No No
Source: Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Study; June 2020.
LONG-TERM REGIONAL IMPACTS
Table 6, Estimated Operational Emissions, summarizes emissions associated with operation of the proposed
Project. Operational emissions would be comprised of vehicle trips (mobile sources) to inspect and
maintain the improvements. However, these emissions are currently occurring as part of ongoing
inspection and maintenance activities. Operation of the Project would not generate area emissions or
emissions related to energy consumption. For modeling purpose, it was assumed that cumulatively, the
Project would generate one (1) vehicle trip daily over the course of a year. This method likely overestimates
actual emissions; however, the approach is intended to provide comparative data for the purpose of CEQA
compliance. As shown in Table 6, emissions associated with operation of the Project would not exceed the
SDAPCD thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, or PM2.5. Therefore, the Project’s regional air quality
impacts, including impacts related to criteria pollutants, sensitive receptors, and violations of air quality
standards, would be less than significant.
Table 6: Estimated Operational Emissions
Proposed Project Estimated Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Area 0.01 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0
Energy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mobile 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01
Maximum lbs/day 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01
SDAPCD Thresholds 75 250 550 250 100 67
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Note: See Appendix for CalEEMod version. 2016.3.2 computer model output. Summer emissions shown.
Source: Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Study; June 2020.
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 would be assessed as less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
c)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less than Significant Impact: Sensitive receptors include schools, hospitals, playgrounds, childcare 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. The closest properties defined herein as sensitive receptors are residences located
along the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard, 70’ from the proposed construction area.
CONSTRUCTION-RELATED TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT IMPACTS
The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant emissions would be related to diesel particulate emissions
associated with heavy equipment operations during construction of the proposed Project. According to
SCAQMD methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of
“individual cancer risk.” The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) health
risk guidance states that a residential receptor should be evaluated based on a 30-year exposure period.
“Individual cancer risk” is the likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of toxic air contaminants
over a 70-year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of standard risk-assessment methodology.
Given the short-term construction schedule, the proposed Project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 30
or 70 year) exposure to a substantial source of toxic air contaminant emissions and thus, would not be
exposed to the related individual cancer risk. Therefore, no significant short-term toxic air contaminant
impacts would occur during construction of the proposed Project.
LOCAL CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS
Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas that may be found in high concentrations near
areas of high traffic volumes. CO emissions are a function of vehicle idling time, meteorological conditions,
and traffic flow. The SDAB is in attainment of state and federal CO standards; thus, CO data is no longer
collected and not all monitoring stations have CO data available. The maximum 8-hour average CO level
recorded in 2012 (the last year data were recorded) at the Escondido East Valley Parkway site (the site
closest to the Project area) was 3.61 parts per million (ppm). Concentrations were below the 9-ppm state
and federal 8-hour standard.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
d)Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
Less than Significant Impact: The proposed Project could generate emissions resulting in objectionable
odors from construction, vehicles, and/or equipment exhaust from VOCs, 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.
The Project would not generate uses or activities that would have long-term operational odorous
emissions. Therefore, impacts associated with odors during construction or operation would be considered
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
IV.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the Project:Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
wi
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
In
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a)Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐☒☐☐
b)Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or
wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐☒☐☐
c)Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected
wetlands (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
☐☒☐☐
d)Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident
or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
☐☒☐☐
e)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?☐☐☐☒
f)Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
☐☒☐☐
The following analysis is based on a Biological Technical Report and is presented in Appendix C.
EXISTING SETTING
The Project area is comprised of approximately 15 acres within a highly recreated area situated between
Carlsbad Boulevard and Carlsbad State Beach. The Survey Area is comprised of several different land use
types: bare sandy beach, paved road and walking paths with ornamental landscaping, and a mostly
continuous stretch of native coastal scrub habitat punctuated by five (5) concrete stairways. The areas to
the north and east of the Project area are fully developed, including residential neighborhoods and
commercial buildings. The area to the south of the Project site includes a small, paved parking lot and a
tidal inlet to Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The area to the west of the Project site is Carlsbad State Beach.
Vegetation Communities
Vegetation/land cover mapping and acreages for each vegetation community and land type within the
Survey Area can be found in Table 7, Vegetation Communities/Land Cover Observed within the Survey Area,
and Figures 10 and 11. Figures 10a-10e, Vegetation/Land Cover Survey Area – Modified Holland, depict
vegetation communities within the Project area that were mapped using the modified Holland system
(CDFW et al., 2003). Figures 11a-11e, Vegetation/Land Cover Survey Area – Manual of CA Vegetation, depict
vegetation communities within the Project area that were mapped using the Manual of California
Vegetation (Sawyer et al., 2009).
Table 7: Vegetation Communities/Land Cover Observed within the Survey Area
Vegetation Community/Land Cover Type Acreage
Subtotals Acreage Totals Modified Holland System Vegetation Alliance (Sawyer et al., 2009)
32500 Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
Rhus integrifolia Shrubland Alliance
(Lemonade Berry scrub) 0.96
3.85 Encelia californica Shrubland Alliance
(California brittle bush scrub) 2.89
32400 Maritime Succulent Scrub Opuntia littoralis Shrubland Alliance
(Coast prickly pear scrub) 0.69 0.69
45310 Alkali Meadow Distichlis spicata Herbaceous Alliance
(Salt grass flats) 0.04 0.04
63320 Disturbed Southern
Willow Scrub
Salix exigua Shrubland Alliance
(Sandbar willow thickets) 0.04 0.04
52410 Disturbed Coastal and
Valley Fresh Marsh
Typha latifolia Herbaceous Alliance
(Cattail marsh) 0.07 0.07
11000 Non-Native Vegetation
Cakile maritima Provisional Herbaceous
Semi-Natural Alliance (Sea rocket stands) 0.03
0.22 Myoporum laetum Woodland Semi-Natural
Alliance (Myoporum groves) 0.02
Limonium perezii stand
(Perez’s sea lavender stand) 0.17
13000 Unvegetated Habitat Disturbed/Bare 0.11 0.11
12000 Urban/Developed Disturbed/Developed 10.12 10.12
Total 15.14
BEACH ACCESS REPAIR PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Vegetation/Land Cover Survey Area Index Map – Modified Holland
Figure 10a
Source: Bing, GHD; December 2020.
BEACH ACCESS REPAIR PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Vegetation/Land Cover Survey Area Frame 1 – Modified Holland
Figure 10b
Source: Bing, GHD; December 2020.
BEACH ACCESS REPAIR PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 10c
Vegetation/Land Cover Survey Area Frame 2 – Modified Holland
Source: Bing, GHD; December 2020.
BEACH ACCESS REPAIR PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 10d
Vegetation/Land Cover Survey Area Frame 3 – Modified Holland
Source: Bing, GHD; December 2020.
BEACH ACCESS REPAIR PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 10e
Vegetation/Land Cover Survey Area Frame 4 – Modified Holland
Source: Bing, GHD; December 2020.
BEACH ACCESS REPAIR PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Vegetation/Land Cover Survey Area Index Map – Manual of CA Vegetation
Figure 11a
Source: Bing, GHD; December 2020.
BEACH ACCESS REPAIR PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 11b
Vegetation/Land Cover Survey Area Frame 1 – Manual of CA Vegetation
Source: Bing, GHD; December 2020.
BEACH ACCESS REPAIR PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 11c
Vegetation/Land Cover Survey Area Frame 2 – Manual of CA Vegetation
Source: Bing, GHD; December 2020.
BEACH ACCESS REPAIR PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 11d
Vegetation/Land Cover Survey Area Frame 3 – Manual of CA Vegetation
Source: Bing, GHD; December 2020.
BEACH ACCESS REPAIR PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 11e
Vegetation/Land Cover Survey Area Frame 4 – Manual of CA Vegetation
Source: Bing, GHD; December 2020.
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub: A total of 3.85 acres of Diegan Coastal Sage scrub was mapped within the Project
area. This drought-deciduous community occurs on dry south-facing slopes and is comprised of aromatic
shrubs and annual and perennial herbs and grasses. Characteristic species of this group that are present
within the Survey Area include coastal sagebrush (Artemisia californica), California buckwheat (Eriogonum
fasciculatum), and black sage (Salvia mellifera). Based on Sawyer et al. (2009), this community can be sub-
divided into two (2) alliances:
•Rhus integrifolia Shrubland Alliance (Lemonade Berry scrub): A total of 0.96 acres of Rhus
integrifolia Shrubland Alliance was mapped within Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub. These areas occur
along the bluff and are dominated or co-dominated by lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia), with
California brittle bush (Encelia californica), at times, as a co-dominant species. Other species
observed within these areas include California buckwheat and laurel sumac (Malosma laurina).
•Encelia californica Shrubland Alliance (California brittle bush scrub): A total of 2.89 acres of Encelia
californica Shrubland Alliance was mapped within Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub along the bluff. These
areas are typically dominated by California brittle bush. At times, California brittle bush is co-
dominant in the shrub canopy with coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), San Diego goldenbush
(Isocoma menziesii menziesii), spreading goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii sedoides), and/or black
sage. Additional native species observed in these areas include coastal sagebrush, coast prickly
pear (Opuntia littoralis), four-wing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), bladderpod (Peritoma arborea
var. arborea), lady-fingers (Dudleya edulis), deer weed (Acmispon glaber var. glaber), California
fuchsia (Epilobium canum ssp. canum), California buckwheat, and coast desert-thorn (Lycium
californicum). Non-native species observed within these areas include hottentot fig (Carpobrotus
edulis), crystalline iceplant (Mesembryanthemum crystallinum), spotted spurge (Euphorbia
maculata), and great bougainvillea (Bougainvillea spectabilis).
Maritime Succulent Scrub: A total of 0.69 acres of Maritime Succulent Scrub was mapped within the Project
area. These areas occur on the bluff and are typically dominated by coast cholla (Cylindropuntia prolifera);
a portion of these areas is co-dominated by coast prickly pear and California brittle bush. Other species
observed in this community type include San Diego goldenbush and spreading goldenbush. This community
can also be classified as Opuntia littoralis Shrubland Alliance (Coast prickly pear scrub; Sawyer et al., 2009).
Alkali Meadow: A total of 0.04 acres was mapped as Alkali Meadow within the Project area. These areas
are comprised of salt grass patches along the west side of the sea wall in the sand. This vegetation
community type was at times co-dominated by sea rocket (Cakile maritima). This community can also be
classified as Distichlis spicata Herbaceous Alliance (Salt grass flats; Sawyer et al., 2009).
Disturbed Southern Willow Scrub: A total of 0.04 acres of Disturbed Southern Willow Scrub was mapped
within the Project area. This area is comprised almost entirely of sandbar willow (Salix exigua) with a single
stand of giant reed (Arundo donax) and the occasional salt heliotrope and sea rocket interspersed within.
This community occurs in the sandy beach west of and adjacent to the sea wall near the stairway at the
end of Cherry Avenue. Based on Sawyer et al. (2009), this area can also be classified as Salix exigua
Shrubland Alliance (Sandbar willow thickets).
Disturbed Coastal and Valley Fresh Marsh: A total of 0.07 acres of the Project area was mapped as Disturbed
Coastal and Valley Fresh Marsh. This community type is located in two (2) areas of the sandy beach west
of and immediately adjacent to the sea wall south of the stairway at the end of Cherry Avenue, as well as
in one (1) small area at the northern end of the Survey Area. These areas occur in depressions, exhibit
standing water, and are dominated by broad-leaf cattail (Typha latifolia). Additional native species present
within these areas include bulrush (Schoenoplectus sp.) and salt grass. Non-native plants present in these
areas include sea rocket and umbrella plant (Cyperus involucratus). This community can also be classified
as Typha latifolia Herbaceous Alliance (Cattail marsh; Sawyer et al., 2009).
Non-Native Vegetation: A total of 0.22 acres of the Project area was mapped as Non-Native Vegetation,
primarily comprised of sea rocket, myoporum (Myoporum laetum) trees, and Perez’s sea lavender. Based
on Sawyer et al. (2009), this vegetation community can be divided into three (3) alliances:
•Cakile maritima Provisional Herbaceous Semi-Natural Alliance (Sea rocket stands): A total of 0.03
acres of Cakile maritima Provisional Herbaceous Semi-Natural Alliance was mapped within the
Project area. These areas occur along the west side of the sea wall in the sand and are dominated
by sea rocket (Cakile maritima); salt heliotrope (Heliotropium curassavicum var. oculatum) was also
observed in these areas.
•Myoporum laetum Woodland Semi-Natural Alliance (Myoporum groves): A total of 0.02 acres of
Myoporum laetum Woodland Semi-Natural Alliance was mapped at one (1) location within the
Project area at the top of the bluff, just north of the stairway at the end of Hemlock Avenue. This
area is dominated by myoporum trees with little to no native vegetation present.
•Limonium perezii stand: A total of 0.17 acres of Limonium perezii stand was mapped within the
Project area. These areas along the bluff are dominated by non-native Perez’s sea lavender with
little to no native vegetation present.
Disturbed/Bare: A total of 0.11 acres of the Project area is considered Disturbed/Bare. These areas occur
adjacent to developed areas. Portions of the slopes (especially the upper slopes) show a lack of vegetative
cover. Much of these areas occur above the uppermost irrigation lines, where vegetation was likely not
planted when habitat installation occurred along the slopes. These areas may also be subject to disturbance
from ongoing vegetation maintenance. Some areas under and adjacent to the five (5) stairways that bisect
the slopes show a large amount of erosion and are deeply incised. These areas often lack vegetation and
are included in the disturbed/bare category.
Disturbed/Developed: A total of 10.12 acres of the Project area is considered Disturbed/Developed.
Disturbed/Developed land cover includes paved, pedestrian paths, stairways, and a portion of Carlsbad
Boulevard. Ornamental vegetation occurs within this area along the upper sidewalks and Carlsbad
Boulevard, including Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta), crimson bottlebrush (Callistemon citrinus),
fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum), and bird of paradise (Strelitzia reginae).
Sensitive Status Vegetation Communities: The habitats described above as Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
(Lemonade berry scrub and California brittle brush scrub) and Maritime Succulent Scrub (Coast prickly pear
scrub) are considered sensitive vegetation communities by California Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The habitat
described as Disturbed Coastal and Valley Fresh Marsh (cattail marsh) may also be considered a sensitive
resource by CDFW.
The habitats described as Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, Maritime Succulent Scrub, Disturbed Coastal and
Valley Fresh Marsh, and Beach are identified as sensitive habitats requiring mitigation under the City’s
Habitat Management Plan (HMP).
Southern Coastal Salt Marsh community was reported in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)
within two (2) miles of the Project site; however, this plant community was not observed in the Project site.
Plants
A total of 57 plant species were observed within the Project area during the July 2018 and June 2020
surveys and are listed in Appendix B of the Biological Technical Report.
SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES ONSITE
Two (2) observations of sensitive plant species occurred during the July 2018 survey. Biologists identified
two (2) cliff spurge (Euphorbia miseria) individuals within areas of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub and several
individuals of coast desert-thorn (Lycium californicum). Cliff spurge is a perennial shrub with a California
Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 2B.2 and is a covered species under the City’s HMP. Cliff spurge was originally
introduced to the area by California State Parks as part of a bluff revegetation project and the plants were
sourced from the Torrey Pines State Natural Reserve Genetic Stock. Coast desert-thorn is a perennial shrub
with a CRPR of 4.2 and is not a covered species under the HMP. The locations of cliff spurge individuals are
included in the Vegetation/Land Cover Maps; refer to Figures 10 and 11.
No other sensitive plant species were observed within the Project area during the 2018 and 2020 general
biological surveys.
SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
Sensitive plant species include federally, or state listed threatened or endangered species and those species
listed on California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) rare and endangered plant inventory. Species with the
potential to occur onsite were analyzed based on distribution, habitat requirements, and existing site
conditions, and are listed in Appendix B of the Biological Technical Report.
One (1) special status plant species exhibits a high potential to occur onsite: sea dahlia (Leptosyne
maritima), a perennial herb with a CRPR of 2B.2. Sea dahlia is not a covered species under the City’s HMP.
There were two (2) recorded CNDDB observations of this species within the Survey Area in 2015.
The following special status plant species have a moderate potential to occur within the Project area: South
Coast saltscale (Atriplex pacifica), Orcutt’s pincushion (Chaenactis glabriuscula var. orcuttiana), Del Mar
Mesa sand aster (Corethrogyne filaginifolia var. linifolia), San Diego barrel cactus (Ferocactus viridescens),
Robinson’s pepper-grass (Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii), and San Diego County viguiera (Viguiera
laciniata [= Bahiopsis laciniata]).
Wildlife
The CNDDB was used to identify any special status wildlife that may exist within a 2-mile radius of the
Project site; refer to Figure 12, California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). CNDDB records are generally
used as a starting point when determining what special status species, if any, may occur in a particular area.
However, these records may be old, lack data not yet entered, and do not represent all the special status
species that could be in that area. Sensitive wildlife species include the following classifications: federally
or state listed threatened or endangered species, California species of special concern, and fully protected
species (as designated by CDFW). Species with the potential to occur onsite were analyzed based on
distribution, habitat requirements, and existing site conditions.
Southern California legless lizard
sea dahlia
Shaw's agave
San Diego fairy shrimp
cliff spurge
decumbent goldenbush
California glossy snake
Crotch bumble bee
wart-stemmed ceanothus
western yellow bat
coastal cactus wren
pocketed free-tailed bat
tidewater goby
tidewater goby
white-faced ibis
western snowy plover
light-footed Ridgway's rail
coastal California gnatcatcher
California least tern
western snowy plover
Orcutt's pincushion
light-footed Ridgway's rail Belding's savannah sparrow
mimic tryonia (=California brackishwater snail)
estuary seablite
mimic tryonia (=California brackishwater snail)
California least tern
Belding's savannah sparrow
Southern Coastal Salt Marsh
least Bell's vireo
monarch - California overwintering population
least Bell's vireo
coast woolly-heads
least Bell's vireo
California adolphiacliff spurge
cliff spurge
monarch - California overwintering population
sea dahlia
cliff spurge
coastal California gnatcatcher
Del Mar Mesa sand aster
cliff spurge
Nuttall's acmispon California adolphia
south coast saltscale
Legend
Survey Area
Buffer ( 2 mi)
CNDDB Species Occurrence
BEACH ACCESS REPAIR PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 12
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)
Source: CNDDB and ESRI; December 2020.
No special status animal species were observed within the Project area during the July 2018 and June 2020
general biological surveys. The following special status animal species have a moderate potential to occur
within the Project area: coastal California gnatcatcher, coastal cactus wren (Campylorhynchus
brunneicapillus sandiegensis), western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus), and pocketed free-tailed bat
(Nyctinomops femorosaccus).
The coastal California gnatcatcher is a federally threatened species and a CDFW Species of Special Concern.
This subspecies is a year-round resident of coastal southern California and northwestern Baja California and
is closely aligned with coastal scrub vegetation, including Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub. They could also occur
in other nearby vegetation communities but rely on coastal scrub for reproduction. The Diegan Coastal
Sage Scrub community identified within the Project area could offer some transitory foraging and/or resting
habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher, as the Survey Area is situated between Buena Vista Lagoon (to
the north) and Agua Hedionda Lagoon (to the south), both contain suitable gnatcatcher habitat. The coastal
sage scrub habitat onsite is comprised of a narrow strip of bluff situated below the upper sidewalk area and
punctuated by large stairways used for public beach access. It is located within a highly utilized recreation
area for biking, walking/running, and beach activities. Based on these factors, the Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
habitat within the Survey Area would not likely function as a nesting habitat for coastal California
gnatcatcher.
The coastal cactus wren is a CDFW Species of Special Concern and a USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern.
This subspecies is a year-round resident of southern California and is an obligate inhabitant of coastal sage
scrub. They nest almost exclusively in coast prickly pear and coast cholla vegetation. Like the coastal
California gnatcatcher, the coastal cactus wren could utilize the Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub and Maritime
Succulent Scrub within the Project area as transitory foraging and resting habitat. Based on the small and
narrow nature of the native scrub habitats onsite and the high degree of recreational use of immediately
adjacent areas, the Maritime Succulent Scrub within the Survey Area would not likely function as a nesting
habitat for coastal cactus wren.
The western yellow bat is a CDFW Species of Special Concern and a Western Bat Working Group ‘High’
priority species. This species is a year-round resident of southern California that roosts in trees and often
in palm trees. The palm trees along the upper sidewalk and within the median along Carlsbad Boulevard
could provide some roosting habitat for this species.
The pocketed free-tailed bat is a CDFW Species of Special Concern and a Western Bat Working Group
‘Moderate’ priority species. This species is a year-round resident of southern California that roosts in rock
crevices, caverns, or buildings. Potentially suitable crevices under the existing stairways could offer roosting
habitat for this species.
Critical Habitat
The Project site does not fall within or adjacent to critical habitat. The nearest critical habitat is coastal
California gnatcatcher and thread-leaved brodiaea critical habitats located over two (2) miles from the
Survey Area; refer to Figure 13, Critical Habitat.
Thread-leaved brodiaea
Coastal California gnatcatcher
Coastal California gnatcatcherCoastal California gnatcatcher
Spreading navarretia
Riverside fairy shrimp
Legend
Survey Area
Buffer ( 2 mi)
Critical Habitat
~2.4 Miles from project site
~2.7 Miles from project site
BEACH ACCESS REPAIR PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 13
���al Habitat
Source: ESRI and USFWS; December 2020.
Wildlife Movement
Wildlife corridors link together areas of suitable habitat that are otherwise separated by rugged terrain,
changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. The fragmentation of open space areas by urbanization
creates isolated “islands” of wildlife habitat. Corridors effectively act as links between different populations
of a species. An increase in a population’s genetic variability is generally associated with an increase in a
population’s health. Wildlife movement activities usually fall into one of three (3) movement categories:
•Dispersal (e.g., juvenile animals from natal areas, individuals extending range distributions);
•Seasonal migration; and
•Movements related to home range activities (foraging for food or water, defending territories,
searching for mates, breeding areas, or cover).
The Project area is comprised of several different land use types: bare sandy beach, paved road and walking
paths with ornamental landscaping, and a mostly continuous stretch of native coastal scrub habitat
punctuated by five (5) concrete stairways. The coastal scrub within the Project area could provide some
connectivity between Buena Vista Lagoon (to the north) and Agua Hedionda Lagoon (to the south) for
highly mobile wildlife, like birds. However, this area does not provide continuous habitat between the
lagoons. Furthermore, the coastal scrub area is immediately surrounded by development and highly utilized
recreational areas and would not be large enough to provide many of the benefits of a typical wildlife
corridor.
Avian Nesting and Bat Roost
The Project area has the potential to support nesting birds within vegetation, on the ground, or within
structures such as the stairways. The general biological surveys occurred within the nesting season;
biologists did not observe signs of nesting activity within the Project area. The Project area also has the
potential to support roosting bats within the palm trees along the upper sidewalks and within the stairways.
While a focused survey for bat roosting was not conducted at the time of the general biological surveys, no
active bat roosts were incidentally observed during the 2018 and 2020 surveys.
Jurisdictional Waters
The following sources were reviewed to determine the potential presence or absence of jurisdictional
streams/drainages and wetlands and their location within the watersheds associated with the Project area
and other features that could contribute to federal or state jurisdictional authority located within
watersheds associated with the Project area; National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps (USFWS, 2020),
USGS National Hydrography Dataset, Aerial Imagery, USGS 7.5-Minute Topographic Maps; and Natural
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey.
Additionally, a field survey of the Project area was conducted to assess the presence of jurisdictional
wetland waters of the United States (WOUS), using the methodology published in the USACE 1987 Wetland
Delineation Manual (USACE, 1987) and the Arid West Supplement (USACE, 2008). The Project area was also
assessed for jurisdictional non-wetland WOUS, as determined through the observation of an Ordinary High
Water Mark (OHWM), which is defined as the “line on the shore established by the fluctuation of water
and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving,
changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or
other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.”
The Survey Area contains potentially jurisdictional features along the west side of the sea wall, within areas
identified as sandbar willow thickets and cattail marsh. Two (2) discrete emergent wetland areas identified
as cattail marsh occur along the west side of the sea wall, between the two (2) stairways located at the end
of Cherry Avenue and Hemlock Avenue. These areas occur in depressions and contain standing water.
Native vegetation in these areas include broad-leaf cattail, bulrush, and salt grass. Non-native vegetation
in these areas include sea rocket and umbrella plant. A third potentially jurisdictional feature occurs just
north of the two (2) emergent wetland areas along the west side of the sea wall in the area identified as
sandbar willow thickets. This feature occurs in the sandy beach soil and is dominated by sandbar willow
with a single patch of Arundo. During the 2018 and 2020 general biological surveys, biologists did not
observe standing water at this feature, nor did they observe evidence of soil saturation or a high-water
table.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Table 8, Regulatory Framework, is a list of the relevant federal, state, and local laws and regulations that
apply to protecting plant communities, plants, wildlife, and water quality from impacts within the Project
site.
Table 8: Regulatory Framework
Agency/
Organization Laws/Regulations Notes
Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section
404
Jurisdictional WOUS may be present within the Project site
but will not be impacted during Project activities;
therefore, a Section 404 Permit from the United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is not required.
CWA Section 401 Jurisdictional WOUS and Waters of the State (WOS) may
be present within the Project site but will not be impacted
during Project activities; therefore, a Section 401 Water
Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) is not required.
CWA Section 408 No facilities subject to Section 408 occur within the
Project.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) Compliance with the MBTA will be achieved with pre-
construction surveys for nesting birds within three (3) days
prior to initiation of work during the nesting bird season
(February 15 - September 15).
Endangered Species Act (ESA) As discussed in Section IV, there is a moderate potential
for the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher
(Polioptila californica californica; “gnatcatcher”) to occur
onsite in a transitory nature; however, this species is not
likely to utilize the Project site as nesting habitat. See
Mitigation Measure BIO-5 below for recommendations
regarding pre-construction surveys during the gnatcatcher
breeding season. Should an active gnatcatcher nest occur
within or adjacent to the Project site, consultation with the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will need
to occur.
State Section 1600 of the Fish and Game
Code (FGC)
Jurisdictional WOS may be present within the Project site
but will not be impacted during Project activities;
therefore, a Section 1600 Permit through the CDFW is not
required.
Agency/
Organization Laws/Regulations Notes
Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of
the FGC
These FGC sections offer protection of nesting birds, birds-
of-prey, and migratory birds. Compliance will be
maintained with a pre-construction survey for nesting
birds (including birds-of-prey and migratory birds) within
three (3) days prior to initiation of work during the nesting
bird season (February 15 - September 15).
Section 4150 of the FGC Prohibits incidental or deliberate “take” of non-game
mammals, including bats. Potential impacts to bats will be
avoided with a pre-construction survey conducted prior to
initiation of work.
Porter-Cologne Water Quality
Control Act and Water Discharge
Requirements (WDR)
WOS and WOUS may be present within the Project site but
will not be impacted during Project activities; therefore, a
Water Quality Certification is not required.
City of
Carlsbad
Habitat Management Plan (HMP) The Project is located within the City of Carlsbad and is
subject to the requirements of the City’s HMP, which
functions as Carlsbad’s Subarea Plan within the North
County Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP) as well
as an Ongoing Multi-Species Plan (OMSP) consistent with
California’s Natural Community Conservation Planning
(NCCP) program. The HMP also constitutes a habitat
conservation plan (HCP) pursuant to the ESA and the
California Endangered Species Act (CESA) for authorization
to take certain listed species. The Project site lies within
Local Facilities Management Zone 1, within the portion of
the City labeled “Development Areas,” outside of the HMP
planning area.
Carlsbad HMP Permit A Minor HMP Permit or HMP Permit is required for any
Project that directly or indirectly impacts natural habitat
and/or sensitive species within the City of Carlsbad
(Section 21.210.070 of City Zoning Ordinance).
Carlsbad HMP Incidental Take
Permit
A Carlsbad HMP Incidental Take Permit is required for take
of a state or federally listed species within the City of
Carlsbad that is covered by the HMP (Section 21.210.075
of City Zoning Ordinance). It is unlikely that this permit will
be necessary as no state or federally listed species were
observed during the general biological field surveys nor
have any been previously documented within the Survey
Area. A discussion of the potential for gnatcatcher to occur
onsite is included in Section IV.
Coastal Development Permit (CDP) A CDP is required for the Project as it lies within the
Coastal Zone. The City of Carlsbad has an approved LCP.
PROJECT IMPACTS
a)Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
SENSITIVE PLANTS
The Project would potentially impact one (1) individual cliff spurge (Euphorbia miseria), located
approximately 5’ west of the stairway at Cherry Avenue and Carlsbad Boulevard. However, the species cliff
spurge is included in the plant revegetation palette for the proposed Project and mitigation for impacts to
cliff spurge will be planted at a ratio of 3:1. This species is adequately covered under the City’s HMP, where
94 percent of the preferred habitat of the species is conserved within the City (City of Carlsbad, 2004). The
other cliff spurge identified, as well as the coast desert-thorn individuals are not located within the limits
of disturbance and would not be subject to direct impacts by Project activities. While not observed during
the general biological surveys in 2018 and 2020, sea dahlia has been previously recorded within the Project
area and could potentially be impacted from Project activities. With the implementation of Mitigation
Measure BIO-1, potential impacts to sensitive plant species would be less than significant.
Sensitive plant species not directly impacted by Project activities but located near the Project limits of
disturbance could be indirectly impacted by construction activities. Indirect impacts could include increases
in dust, debris, and trash. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-6, potential indirect impacts
sensitive plant species would be less than significant.
SENSITIVE PLANT CRITICAL HABITAT
The Project site does not fall within or adjacent to critical habitat. The nearest critical habitat is coastal
California gnatcatcher and thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia) critical habitats located over two (2)
miles from the Survey Area. Therefore, there would be no impacts to critical habitat.
SENSITIVE WILDLIFE
Based on the literature and database review, there are four (4) special status wildlife species with moderate
potential to occur in the Project area: coastal California gnatcatcher, coastal cactus wren, western yellow
bat, and pocketed free-tailed bat. Coastal California gnatcatcher and coastal cactus wren would have the
potential to occur within the coastal sage scrub and succulent scrub habitats within the slopes, within and
adjacent to the Project site. The western yellow bat has the potential to roost within the palm trees along
Carlsbad Boulevard; however, these palms are not anticipated to be removed. Should these City owned
and maintained palm trees need to be removed during construction, the trees must be replaced at a 2:1
ratio as per the City’s Community Forest Management Plan (2019a). There is potential for the pocketed
free-tailed bat to use crevices under the existing stairways as roosting habitat; these stairways would be
replaced as part of Project activities. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-2, BIO-3, BIO-4,
BIO-5, and BIO-6, potential impacts to sensitive plants and sensitive wildlife would be less than significant.
SENSITIVE WILDLIFE CRITICAL HABITAT
The Project site does not fall within any critical habitat. Thus, there would be no impacts to critical habitat.
Mitigation Measures:
BIO-1: Prior to the start of construction activities, including vegetation removal, demolition, and
grading activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey for sensitive plants within the
Project footprint and immediately adjacent habitat. To the extent practicable, the plant survey
shall occur within the blooming period for those sensitive species previously observed onsite
and/or those species with a high potential to occur onsite. To the extent practicable, sensitive
plant species shall be avoided by Project activities. If sensitive plant avoidance is not
practicable, then it is recommended that the impacted species be either (a) transplanted
outside of the Project impact footprint prior to Project implementation or (b) replanted onsite
(1:1 ratio) following Project implementation, if feasible.
BIO-2: Bat Protection. Prior to the start of construction, including demolition and grading activities,
all suitable areas within the Project site and an appropriate survey buffer shall be surveyed for
the presence of bat roosts by a qualified bat biologist. Surveys are required as follows:
(1)Initial surveys are recommended to be conducted at least six (6) months prior to the
initiation of vegetation removal and ground disturbing activities, ideally during the
maternity season (typically March 1 - August 31), to allow time to prepare mitigation
and/or exclusion plans if needed; and
(2)Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified bat biologist no more than
two (2) weeks prior to the initiation of vegetation removal and ground disturbing
activities. Surveys may entail direct inspection of the trees, stairways, and/or other
suitable habitat or nighttime surveys.
BIO-2(a): If active bat roosts are present, a qualified bat biologist shall determine the species of bats
present and the type of roost (i.e., day roost, night roost, maternity roost). If the biologist
determines that the roosting bats are not a special-status species and the roost is not being
used as a maternity roost, then the bats may be evicted from the roost by a qualified bat
biologist experienced in developing and implementing bat mitigation and exclusion plans.
BIO-2(a)(i): If special-status bat species or a maternity roost of any bat species is present, but no direct
removal of active roosts will occur, a qualified bat biologist shall determine appropriate
avoidance measures, which may include implementation of a construction-free buffer around
the active roost.
BIO-2(a)(ii): If special-status bat species or a maternity roost of any bat species is present and direct
removal of habitat (roost location) will occur, then a qualified bat biologist experienced in
developing bat mitigation and exclusion plans shall develop a mitigation plan to compensate
for the lost roost site. Removal of the roost shall only occur when the mitigation plan has been
approved by the City and only when bats are not present in the roost. The mitigation plan shall
detail the methods of excluding bats from the roost and the plans for a replacement roost in
the vicinity of the Project site. The mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City for approval
prior to implementation. The plan shall include: (1) a description of the species targeted for
mitigation; (2) a description of the existing roost or roost sites; (3) methods to be used to
exclude the bats if necessary; (4) methods to be used to secure the existing roost site to
prevent its reuse prior to removal; (5) the location for a replacement roost structure; (6) design
details for the construction of the replacement roost; (7) monitoring protocols for assessing
replacement roost use; (8) a schedule for excluding bats, demolishing of the existing roost, and
construction of the replacement roost; and (9) contingency measures to be implemented if the
replacement roosts do not function as designed.
BIO-2(b): If the pre-construction survey determines that no active roosts are present, then
trees/stairways/suitable habitat shall be removed within two (2) weeks following the
pre-construction survey.
BIO-2(c): All potential roost trees shall be removed in a manner approved by a qualified bat biologist,
which may include presence of a biological monitor.
BIO-2(d): All construction activity in the vicinity of an active roost shall be limited to daylight hours.
BIO-3: Construction activities, including vegetation removal, demolition, and grading activities, shall
occur outside of the gnatcatcher breeding season (February 15 – August 31). If breeding season
avoidance is not practicable, then BIO-4 shall be implemented.
BIO-4: If construction activities, including vegetation removal, demolition, and grading activities, will
occur within gnatcatcher breeding season (February 15 - August 31), the following will be
implemented:
a.A permitted biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey within the Project site
and adjacent suitable habitat prior to the start of work. The survey will be conducted
no more than three (3) days prior to construction.
b.If an active gnatcatcher nest (nest containing eggs or an empty or partial nest with
gnatcatchers actively exhibiting breeding behaviors) occurs within the Project site or
adjacent habitat, the biologist shall establish a 500’ no work buffer around the active
gnatcatcher nest and consultation with USFWS shall occur.
c.If no active gnatcatcher nests are observed during the pre-construction survey, no
further action is required.
BIO-5: A nesting bird survey shall be conducted within three (3) days prior to start of construction,
including demolition, grading, and vegetation removal, if construction and/or vegetation
removal occur during the nesting bird season identified in the HMP (February 15 - September
15). If vegetation removal occurs outside of nesting season or if no nesting birds are found, no
further action is required. If active nests are identified, the biologist will establish appropriate
buffers around the area (typically 500’ for raptors and sensitive species, 200’ for non-
raptors/non-sensitive species). All work within these buffers will be halted until the nesting
effort is finished (i.e., the juveniles are surviving independent from the nest). The on-site
biologist will review and verify compliance with these nesting boundaries and will verify the
nesting effort has finished. Work can resume within the buffer area when no other active nests
are found. Alternatively, a qualified biologist may determine that certain work can be
permitted within the buffer areas and would develop a monitoring plan to prevent any impacts
while the nest continues to be active (eggs, chicks, etc.). If vegetation clearing is not initiated
within 72 hours of a negative survey during nesting season, the nesting survey must be
repeated to confirm the absence of nesting birds.
BIO-6: Implementation of general Best Management Practices (BMPs) is required to the extent
practical. Key aspects of the BMPs are to clearly delineate the limits of disturbance, use
properly maintained equipment, properly implement and monitor water quality BMPs, avoid
use of chemicals near sensitive areas, develop procedures for minimizing the likelihood of spills
and to control sediment, ensure worker safety, and minimize impacts to wildlife.
b)Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: Potential impacts to vegetation/land cover types from
implementation of the Project is shown in Table 9, Vegetation Community Impacts, and Figures 14 and 15.
Figures 14a-14d, Vegetation/Land Cover Impacts - Modified Holland, depict proposed impacts to vegetation
communities within the Project site that were mapped using the modified Holland system (CDFW et al.,
2003). Figures 15a-15d, Vegetation / Land Cover Impacts - Manual of CA Vegetation, depict proposed
impacts to vegetation communities within the Project site that were mapped using the Manual of California
Vegetation (Sawyer et al., 2009).
Table 9: Vegetation Community Impacts
Vegetation Community/Land Cover Type Permanent
Impacts
(acres)
Temporary
Impacts
(acres) Modified Holland System Vegetation Alliance
(Sawyer et al., 2009
32500 Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
Rhus integrifolia Shrubland Alliance
(Lemonade Berry scrub) 0.03 0.10 Encelia californica Shrubland Alliance
(California brittle bush scrub)
32400 Maritime Succulent Scrub Opuntia littoralis Shrubland Alliance
(Coast prickly pear scrub) 0.02 0.02
45310 Alkali Meadow Distichlis spicata Herbaceous Alliance
(Salt grass flats) 0 0
63320 Disturbed Southern Willow
Scrub
Salix exigua Shrubland Alliance
(Sandbar willow thickets) 0 0
52410 Disturbed Coastal and
Valley Fresh Marsh
Typha latifolia Herbaceous Alliance
(Cattail marsh) 0 0
11000 Non-Native Vegetation
Cakile maritima Provisional Herbaceous
Semi-Natural Alliance (Sea rocket stands)
0.003 0.03 Myoporum laetum Woodland Semi-Natural
Alliance (Myoporum groves)
Limonium perezii stand
(Perez’s sea lavender stand)
13400 Beach Sand 0 0
13000 Unvegetated Habitat Disturbed/Bare 0.01 0.03
12000 Urban/Developed Disturbed/Developed 0 0
Total 0.063 0.18
BEACH ACCESS REPAIR PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 14a
Vegeta������ver Impacts Inde������������
Source: Bing, GHD; December 2020.
BEACH ACCESS REPAIR PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 14b
BEACH ACCESS REPAIR PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 14c
BEACH ACCESS REPAIR PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 14d
Vegeta������ver Impacts Fr������������
Source: Bing, GHD; December 2020.
BEACH ACCESS REPAIR PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 15a
Vegeta������ver Impacts Index Map – Manual of CA Vegeta��
Source: Bing, GHD; December 2020.
BEACH ACCESS REPAIR PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 15b
Vegeta������ver Impacts Frames 1 and 2 – Manual of CA Vegeta��
Source: Bing, GHD; December 2020.
BEACH ACCESS REPAIR PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 15c
Vegeta������ver Impacts Frames 3 and 4 – Manual of CA Vegeta��
Source: Bing, GHD; December 2020.
BEACH ACCESS REPAIR PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 15d
Vegeta������ver Impacts Frame 5 – Manual of CA Vegeta��
Source: Bing, GHD; December 2020.
The Project proposes to permanently impact 0.03 acres of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub and 0.02 acres of
Maritime Succulent Scrub within the Project site, primarily along the upper boundary of the slope, where
the sidewalk would be cantilevered an additional 1.5’ over the bluff side to widen the walkway. No
additional footings would be placed underneath the widened sidewalk. While no structures would be
physically placed into the soil, the extension of the walkway would likely create a shading impact, limiting
the growth and survival of existing vegetation, as well as inhibiting recruitment of vegetation into this area.
Results from the Carlsbad Boulevard Upper Sidewalk Widening Shading Impact Analysis (Appendix H)
conducted by KTUA concluded that there would be a slight increase in shading (approximately seven (7)
additional minutes of shade in the morning before full sun exposure for the rest of the day) and this would
not hinder the re-establishment of native plants in the slope areas disturbed by the Project. The same
species of plants that exist on the slope currently would grow on the slope with the upper walkway
cantilevered 1.5’ farther west. As such, impacts due to shading on the native plant communities on the
upper slope area would be negligible.
The Project proposes to temporarily impact 0.10 acres of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub and 0.02 acres of
Maritime Succulent Scrub, primarily in the areas adjacent to the stairways that transect to replace the
stairway structures and to accommodate equipment access. Temporary impacts to these communities are
also anticipated for access along the upper slope where the sidewalk would be widened as well as along
the base of the bluff for minor repairs to the lower retaining wall/curb. The Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub and
Maritime Succulent Scrub communities are considered sensitive by CDFW and require mitigation under the
City’s HMP. Sensitive vegetation communities not directly impacted by Project activities but located near
the Project limits of disturbance could be indirectly impacted by construction activities. Indirect impacts
could include increases in dust, debris, and trash. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-6,
indirect impacts to sensitive vegetation communities would be less than significant.
The Project proposes to permanently impact 0.003 acres and temporarily impact 0.03 acres of Non-Native
Vegetation. The Project also proposes to permanently impact 0.01 acres and temporarily impact 0.03 acres
of Disturbed/Bare land. To reduce impacts on vegetation, the following mitigation measures will be
implemented.
Mitigation Measures:
BIO-7: Permanent impacts to native vegetation communities (including the newly shaded are on the
slope of the coastal bluff area) shall be mitigated in accordance with the City’s HMP for areas
within the coastal zone as shown in Table 10, HMP Mitigation for Impacts to Vegetation
Communities, through establishment of habitat onsite where non-native vegetation currently
exists or where there is a lack of vegetative cover.
BIO-8: Areas where temporary impacts occur to native vegetation communities from the Project
construction activities shall be revegetated with appropriate native vegetation following
Project implementation. Habitat establishment on site shall follow the recommendations
outlined in the Guidelines for Habitat Creation and Restoration (TAIC, 2009) prepared for the
City of Carlsbad. Plant material for revegetation efforts shall also be consistent with State Parks
Statement of Policy for plant genetic integrity (Policies 11.4 and 11.5) to ensure preservation
and diversity of vegetative entities within the State Park System.
BIO-9: An approved landscape specialist (appointed by the City of Carlsbad) shall monitor and
maintain the vegetated communities that were impacted by construction activities as well as
the areas that were revegetated in compliance with the required mitigation ratios. One (1) year
after the completion of the Project, monitoring activities shall continue for an additional five
(5) years. Plant maintenance activities would include pruning as needed, shrubbery to be
checked monthly for breakage/damage, and operation and maintenance of irrigation systems.
Watering Requirements for Native Plants:
•Water plants once a week, for the first month or until the rainy season begins.
•After the rain begins, only water through April and only if it has not rained in 3
consecutive weeks.
•Do not water in direct sun or on an unseasonably warm day.
•Infrequent deep watering is more desirable that frequent shallow watering.
Based on the preponderance of non-native vegetation or a lack of vegetative cover due to disturbance
within these land cover types, impacts to non-native vegetation and disturbed/bare land would be
considered less than significant.
The Project proposes to temporarily or permanently impact native vegetation communities present within
the Project site. Table 10, HMP Mitigation for Impacts to Vegetation Communities, includes the mitigation
ratios described in the City’s HMP for areas within the coastal zone.
Table 10: HMP Mitigation for Impacts to Vegetation Communities
Vegetation
Community
HMP
Mitigation
Ratio
Additional HMP
Requirements within the
Coastal Zone
Temporary
Impacts
(acres)
Permanent
Impacts
(acres)
Anticipated
Mitigation
Requirement
for Permanent
Impacts (acres)
Diegan Coastal
Sage Scrub 2:1
Minimum 1:1 creation or
substantial restoration within
Carlsbad Coastal Zone
0.10 0.03 0.17
Maritime
Succulent
Scrub
3:1
Minimum 1:1 creation or
substantial restoration within
Carlsbad Coastal Zone
0.02 0.02 0.09
Bare/
Non-native
No mitigation
for bare/non-
native areas
required
-- -- -- --
Permanent impacts (0.03 acres of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub; and 0.02 acres of Maritime Succulent Scrub)
will be mitigated at 2:1 and 3:1, respectively with at least 0.17 acres of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub creation
and 0.09 acres of Maritime Succulent Scrub creation. Temporary impacts include 0.10 acres of Diegan
Coastal Sage Scrub, and 0.02 acres of Maritime Succulent Scrub will be mitigated at 1:1 through
revegetation. Permanent impacts to Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub and Maritime Succulent Scrub communities
would be reduced to less than significant with establishment of habitat on site where non-native vegetation
currently exists or where there is a lack of vegetative cover.
Temporarily impacted by Project activities within Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub and Maritime Succulent Scrub
communities would be reduced to less than significant by revegetating temporary impacted areas with
appropriate native vegetation following Project implementation. With implementation of Mitigation
Measures BIO-7, BIO-8, and BIO-9, permanent impacts and temporary impacts to sensitive vegetation
communities would be less than significant.
c)Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The Project area contains features that are potentially
jurisdictional as WOS and/or WOUS. These features would be avoided as part of Project activities.
Therefore, no direct impacts to jurisdictional waters are anticipated. Minor improvements along the sea
wall are anticipated adjacent to these features, however, this work would occur along the eastern side of
the sea wall to avoid direct impacts to these features. The construction activities for the Project could result
in adverse indirect impacts such as increases in dust, debris, and trash. With implementation of Mitigation
Measure BIO-6, potential indirect impacts to jurisdictional waters would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure BIO-6 is required.
d)Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use ofnative wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: Native habitats such as coastal sage and succulent
scrub within the Project area could play a limited role in local wildlife movement between the two (2) large
lagoon habitats located north and south of the Project area. However, Project activities would avoid the
majority of the native coastal scrub on site; thus, the native coastal scrub habitat within the Survey Area
would retain any wildlife movement functions it provides currently. No significant impacts to wildlife
movement are anticipated to occur from implementation of the Project.
The Project area has the potential to support nesting birds and/or roosting bats. Due to the potential for
on-site bird nesting and/or bat roosting, Project construction could result in impacts to nesting birds that
would be in violation of the MBTA and FGC and/or result in impacts to protected bat maternity roosts if
construction activities are to take place during nesting or maternity roosting season. With implementation
of Mitigation Measures BIO-3, BIO-4, and BIO-5, potential impacts to nesting birds would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures BIO-3, BIO-4, and BIO-5 are required.
e)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact: The City of Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 11.12.10 provides a comprehensive program for
installing, maintaining, and preserving trees within the City. The program establishes policies, regulations,
and specifications necessary to govern installation, maintenance, and preservation of trees to beautify the
City, to purify the air, to provide shade and wind protection, and to preserve trees with historic or unusual
value. It is the policy of the City to line its streets with trees and to conduct a consistent and adequate
program for maintaining and preserving these trees. It is also the policy of the City to protect and preserve
all desirable trees that are located on the City’s right-of-way.
The Project is also in compliance with the City’s Community Forest Management Plan, which focuses on
the importance of trees in the urban environment and outlines how the City cares for its existing trees and
plans to increase the overall forest canopy in the City. The plan highlights the importance of trees to the
community including improved air quality, habitat for wildlife, neighborhood beautification, and increased
property value. The proposed Project is consistent with these principles as the Project’s purpose is to
improve the functionality and aesthetics of public access areas along the beach and Carlsbad Boulevard
and provide the community with improved areas to enjoy the natural environment. Additionally,
implementation of the proposed Project would not remove any trees on the Project site, or within the City’s
right-of-way. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
f)Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The Project is located within the City of Carlsbad and
is subject to the requirements of the City’s HMP, which functions as Carlsbad’s Subarea Plan within the
North County MHCP as well as an OMSP consistent with California’s NCCP program. The HMP also
constitutes an HCP pursuant to the ESA and the CESA for authorization to take certain listed species. The
Project site lies within Local Facilities Management Zone 1, within the portion of the City labeled
“Development Areas,” outside of the HMP planning area.
Furthermore, the proposed Project complies with the City’s HMP policies as they relate to properties in the
Coastal Zone. Specifically, conservation standards that are outlined in the City’s HMP include the
importance of protecting environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHAs; Section 7-1), no net loss of habitat
(i.e., Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub and Maritime Succulent Scrub; Section 7-8), and upland habitat mitigation
requirements (Section 7-9). The Project area does not include any ESHAs and any loss of habitat/temporary
impacts to Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub and Maritime Succulent Scrub communities shall be revegetated with
appropriate native vegetation following Project implementation. Furthermore, one (1) year after the
completion of the Project, plant communities impacted by the Project and revegetated will be monitored
and maintained for five (5) years through the implementation of BIO-9.
The proposed Project has been evaluated in accordance with required methods identified in the City’s HMP
and would mitigate impacts to native vegetation in accordance with required established mitigation ratios
and would provide required avoidance and minimization for special status species and sensitive vegetation.
With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 to BIO-9, the Project would not conflict with the City’s
HMP.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3, BIO-4, BIO-5, BIO-6, BIO-7, BIO-8, and BIO-
9 would be implemented.
V.CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the Project:Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
wi
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
In
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource pursuant to §15064.5?☐☒☐☐
b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?☐☒☐☐
c)Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
dedicated cemeteries?☐☒☐☐
The following analysis is based on a Cultural Resources Assessment prepared and is presented in its entirety
in Appendix D. The historic resources discussion regarding the restroom facility at the western terminus of
Tamarack Avenue is summarized from The Tamarack Avenue Comfort Station at Carlsbad State Beach –
Historical Background Study and Determination of Eligibility (California Department of Parks and
Recreation, 2016).
Prehistoric Overview
The earliest Holocene inhabitants of the Carlsbad area were part of the San Dieguito Complex evident at
the Harris site on the San Dieguito River, near Lake Hodges, that dates to 9,000 to 7,500 before present
(BP).
The succeeding Encinitas Tradition, referring to the long time period of mobile hunter-gatherers exploiting
small game, shellfish, and hard seeds and berries, was named the La Jolla Pattern along the coast. The La
Jolla Pattern (in three (3) phases) began about 8,500 BP and extended until approximately 1,300 BP. Most
of these sites are concentrated along the area’s coastal lagoons (ECORP, 2017).
The San Luis Rey Complex (ca. 1,000 to 150 BP) indicates increased sedentism and intensification of land
and resource use; a consolidation of settlements; the use of Cottonwood Triangular points, bedrock
mortars, beads, the introduction of ceramics. These are the forerunners of the Luiseño (ECORP, 2017).
Ethnohistoric Overview
The Carlsbad area was home to two (2) distinct cultures: the Luiseño and the Kumeyaay.
The Luiseño were one of the Takic-speaking families (also including Gabrielino, Juaneño, Serrano,
Kitanemuk, Cahuilla, and Cupeño languages) of Uto-Aztecan stock. Takic speakers are the western
expression of the Uto-Aztecan stock that include cultures from the Great Basin to the Pueblo Southwest
and from southern Arizona to Central America. Uto-Aztecan is one of the most geographically extensive
languages in the Americas (Golla, 2007).
Luiseño villages were located in valleys, along water courses, or along the coast. Their subsistence focused
on acorn and seed gathering, supplemented by small and large mammal and bird hunting and the taking of
sea mammals, fish, crustaceans, and mollusks. Animals were taken individually or in groups using throwing
sticks, nets, traps, and bow and arrow. Canoes, fish traps, and shell hooks were used to capture fish, and
baskets, ceramic storage containers, manos and metates, and ceramic jars were used to process and store
vegetable foods.
The Kumeyaay, or also known as Tipai-lpai or Diegueno (historic Spanish name), and their language belongs
to the Yuman-Cochimi language branch of the Hokan group. Kumeyaay live at the northern border of Baja
California in Mexico and the southern border of California in the United States. Included with the Kumeyaay
Yuman branch are the PaiPai, Kiliwa, Cocopa, Mohave, Maricopa, Quechan, Yavapai, Havasupai, Hualapai.
The Hokan language family is wide-ranging, extending across much of the coastal lands of southern
California (Bugbee, 2023).
Prehistoric and ethnohistoric cultural context for the Project area is largely adapted from the document
Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines (ECORP, 2017). Please refer to that
document for the full context.
Historic Overview of Carlsbad State Beach
CREATION OF CARLSBAD STATE BEACH
According to the Carlsbad State Beach General Plan (1983), Carlsbad State Beach has been a unit of the
State Park System since 1933. The creation of Carlsbad State Beach coincided with the completion of paving
Coast Highway from San Diego to Santa Barbara in 1929, promoting public use of coastal resources along
the California coast. The Carlsbad State Beach unit was classified as a state beach by the State Park and
Recreation Commission in 1969 and is comprised of approximately 44 acres. Public Resources Code Section
5019.56 defines state recreation units as “areas selected, developed, and operated to provide outdoor
recreational opportunities.” The State Park and Recreation Commission established Carlsbad State Beach
as part of San Diego coast state beaches in June of 1964 with the goal to “make [state beaches] available
to the people, for their benefit and enjoyment forever, the scenic and recreational resources inherent to
the coastal beaches and adjacent uplands of San Diego County.”
The State Beach is visited by over one million people annually and there is a need to maintain safe access
and use of the State Beach resources for public enjoyment. The beach access stairways within Carlsbad
State Beach Park were originally constructed over 30 years ago and have undergone numerous renovations
and repairs overtime. Established Resource Management Directives, specifically Section 73 of the Carlsbad
State Beach General Plan, notes that “where recreational resources are primary in a State Park System unit,
development and operation of facilities shall be aimed at making optimal public use of the recreational
opportunities present,” (CADPR, 1983; 1984). The overarching goals and objectives of Carlsbad State Beach
Park are to manage the natural environment to protect important coastal resources while enhancing the
recreational experience and access for the public.
TAMARACK COMFORT STATION
The Tamarack Comfort Station was originally constructed in 1959 and was built with a minimalistic and
austere box-like design consistent with the contemporary style of postwar American architecture. The
building materials consist of exposed wood beams, stacked cinderblock-shaped concrete masonry units
and wood window openings (CADPR, 2016). The Comfort Station acts as a transitional area between the
upper coastal bluff area at street level and the base of the bluff at beach level. Hardscape improvement
and additions to the accessways, including the concrete ramp, walkways, and access stairway, were made
over time by State Parks to meet park access demands and ensure safe public access. Additions and
modifications included the installation of aluminum handrails to meet code requirements and a retaining
wall to provide a level terrace of compacted earth fill to accommodate a flagpole and public shower area
north of the Comfort Station.
The Comfort Station is potentially eligible for listing on the California National Register of Historic Places as
it is over 50 years old and is associated with one of the largest expansion and growth periods in California
State Parks history (CADPR, 2016). The master architect, Robert F. Uhte, designed the Tamarack Comfort
Station and was known for his modernized and post-WWII building designs that exhibited a more playful
and inventive style, which stood out in the landscape as opposed to pre-WWII park building designs. This
type of architectural design build holds unique and important historical significance in California State Park
aesthetics.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Background
“Cultural Resources” as defined in the CEQA Checklist include historical, architectural, archeological, and
paleontological elements. Cultural resources include prehistoric archaeological sites, historic
archaeological sites, historic structures, and artifacts made by people in the past. Prehistoric archaeological
sites are places that contain the material remains of activities carried out by the native population of the
area (Native Americans) prior to the arrival of Europeans in southern California. Artifacts found in
prehistoric sites include flaked stone tools such as projectile points, knives, scrapers, and drills; ground
stone tools such as manos, metates, mortars, and pestles for grinding seeds and nuts; and bone tools.
Historic archaeological sites are places that contain the material remains of activities carried out by people
during the period when written records were produced after the arrival of Europeans. Historic
archaeological material usually consists of refuse, such as bottles, cans, and food waste, deposited near
structure foundations. Historic resources include houses, roads, commercial structures, industrial facilities,
and other structures and facilities more than 50 years old. All components of a development must be
considered in evaluating potential impacts to historical, archeological, and paleontological resources.
Regulatory Setting
CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
CEQA requires a lead agency to determine whether a Project would have a significant effect on one (1) or
more historical resources. A “historical resource” is defined as a resource listed in or determined to be
eligible for listing in the CRHR (California Public Resources Code, Section 21084.1); a resource included in a
local register of historical resources (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR], Section 15064.5[a][2]); or any
object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be
historically significant (14 CCR 15064.5[a][3]). The term “local historic register” or “local register of
historical resources” means a list of resources that are officially designated or recognized as historically
significant by a local government pursuant to resolution or ordinance. “Historical Resources” also includes
resources identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting certain criteria. Additionally,
properties which are not listed but are otherwise determined to be historically significant, based on
substantial evidence, would also be considered “historical resources.”
Section 5024.1 of Public Resource Code, Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR), and
Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 of the CEQA Statutes were used as the basic guidelines for the
cultural/historical resources study. Public Resource Code 5024.1 requires evaluation of historical resources
to determine their eligibility for listing on the CRHR. The purposes of the CRHR are to maintain listings of
the state’s historical resources and to indicate which properties are to be protected from substantial
adverse change. The criteria for listing resources in the CRHR were expressly developed to be in accordance
with criteria developed for listing in the NRHP (per the criteria listed in the Code of Federal Regulations
[CFR], Title 36, Section 60.4) and include those listed below.
A resource may be listed as a historical resource in the California Register if it meets any of the following
NRHP criteria:
•Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
California’s history and cultural heritage;
•Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
•Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or
represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
•Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
According to Section 15064.5(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR), a resource is considered
historically significant if it meets the criteria for listing in the NRHP (per the criteria listed at 36 CFR 60.4,
previously discussed). Impacts that affect those characteristics of the resource that qualify it for the NRHP
or that would adversely alter the significance of a resource listed in or eligible for listing in the CRHR are
considered to have a significant effect on the environment. Impacts to cultural resources from a Project
are thus considered significant if the Project: (1) physically destroys or damages all or part of a resource;
(2) changes the character of the use of the resource or physical feature within the setting of the resource
that contributes to its significance; or (3) introduces visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish
the integrity of significant features of the resource. The first step for an environmental evaluation is to
determine whether the potential property fits the definition of an “historical resource” as defined in the
CEQA Statutes and Guidelines. For this analysis, additional information is typically prepared to assist in the
determination whether that property is an historical resource for purposes of CEQA and/or to aid in the
evaluation of the effects a proposed project may have on an historical resource. The purpose of a
cultural/historical resource investigation is to evaluate whether any resources are present in or near the
Project area. If resources are discovered, management recommendations would be included that require
evaluation of the resources for NRHP or CRHR eligibility.
After determining that a property is a ʺhistorical resourceʺ for the purposes of CEQA, the next step is to
determine if the proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
historical resource. CEQA defines a ʺsubstantial adverse changeʺ as the physical demolition, destruction,
relocation or alteration of the historical resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance
of an historical resource would be materially impaired. CEQA goes on to define ʺmaterially impairedʺ as
work that materially alters, in an adverse manner, those physical characteristics that convey the resources’
historical significance and justify its inclusion in the CRHR, a local register of historical resources, or an
historical resource survey. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(3) considers any adverse impacts to be
mitigated if the project follows the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
The City of Carlsbad’s General Plan Chapter 7, Arts, History, Cultural, and Education, outlines the goals of
the consideration, protection, preservation, and recognition of important cultural resources of the City.
The City’s Municipal Code Chapter 22.06 states that a historic resource may be considered and approved
by the City Council for inclusion in the City’s historic resources inventory if it is deemed significant under
defined criteria similar to the CEQA significance considerations.
The City’s Cultural Resource Guidelines were developed in 1990 for the treatment of cultural resources
consistent with federal, state, and local laws, as well as the United States Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Archaeology and Historic Preservation. The City’s guidelines establish standards of
performance and detail a systematic method of preserving and protecting cultural resources. These
guidelines were superseded in 2017 (see below).
Tribal Cultural Resource Protection Council Policy No. 83, effective March 1, 2016, outlines the City’s tribal
consultation and treatment and protection of Tribal Cultural Resources protocols to assist the City in
implementing the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 52. The City’s policy is to protect the important
historical and cultural values of current Tribal Cultural Resources within the City limits and to improve
consultations with local Native American Tribes, including the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians. This
will be facilitated by early consultation with Tribes.
Recently, ECORP Consulting, Inc. developed the Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources
Guidelines for the City (ECORP, 2017). These guidelines are meant to replace the 1990 cultural resources
guidelines due to new and amended cultural resources laws and regulations that went into effect after
1990. This document serves as the official City guidelines for the treatment of cultural resources within the
limits of the City.
HUMAN REMAINS
Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code provides for the disposition of accidentally
discovered human remains. Section 7050.5 states that, if human remains are found, no further excavation
or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur
until the County Coroner has determined the appropriate treatment and disposition of the human remains.
Section 5097.98 of the Public Resource Code states that, if remains are determined by the Coroner to be
of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24
hours which, in turn, must identify the person or persons it believes to be the MLD of the deceased Native
American. The descendants shall complete their inspection within 48 hours of being granted access to the
site. The designated Native American representative would then determine, in consultation with the
property owner, the disposition of the human remains.
RECORD SEARCH
The South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) at San Diego State University completed a records search on
March 26, 2018. The review consisted of an examination of the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS’) San Luis
Rey 7.5-minute quadrangle map to evaluate the Project site for any cultural sites recorded or cultural
resources studies conducted on and near the Project site. In addition, California Points of Historical Interest
(PHI), California Historical Landmarks (CHL), the CRHR, the NRHP, the California State Historic Resources
Inventory (HRI), and historic topographic maps were reviewed. The search also revealed that five (5)
cultural resources have been recorded within one-half mile of the Project site; refer to Table 11, Cultural
Resources Sites Recorded within One-Half Mile of Project Site. According to the SCIC, Cultural Resource 37-
036871 was recorded as two (2) 1920’s era bricks. They were recorded in an undeveloped area immediately
north of the Tamarack Beach parking lot. They were not observed during the survey.
Table 11: Cultural Resources Sites Recorded within One-Half Mile of Project Site
Resource Number Recorder/Year Description
37-010478/SDI-10478 Pigniolo & Gallegos/1986 Campsite; shell midden
37-013076/SDI-13076 Gallegos & Associates/1993 Lithic and shell scatter
37-017443/Walker/no date Santa Fe Rail Depot
37-026518/SDI-17414 Unknown/1972 Lithic scatter, modern refuse
37-036871*Downs/2017 Two (2) bricks
*Includes Project site.
PROJECT IMPACTS
a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in
Section 15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: The purpose of the cultural/historical
resources assessment is to identify any cultural/historical resources that may exist on the Project site, to
determine the sensitivity of the Project site for the presence of buried historical or archaeological material,
and to make recommendations to the lead agency regarding the development of mitigation measures to
reduce the impacts of the Project on resources to a less than significant level. The records search noted
that one (1) historical resource, two (2) historical era bricks, has been recorded within one-half mile radius
of the Project site. However, the resource was located outside the disturbance area and would not be
impacted by the Project.
The Project consists of repairing and replacing five (5) access stairways and railings in the same
configuration at each access location. The Project would include the in-kind replacement of stairs and
walkways adjacent to the restroom facility located near the top of the bluff at the western terminus of
Tamarack Avenue. Because of the beach access stairway’s relationship to the adjacent building/structure,
a Historical Background Study and Determination of Eligibility Report was prepared to provide a historical
background study of the existing building/structure and its associated site improvements to determine if
the site or its resources are historically significant. The restroom facility has been studied and concluded
potentially eligible for listing on the CRHR and NRHP (California Department of Parks and Recreation, 2016).
The restroom was constructed in 1959, and various maintenance-related modifications were made in 2015.
The CADPR Historical Background Study concluded:
“Although it [the Tamarack Comfort Station] has experienced certain alterations and
replacement of certain exterior and interior features, they have not had a cumulative effect
on the restroom’s ability to convey its historic integrity.
Therefore, any alterations needed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act would
have to be consistent with both the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for
Rehabilitation, and the California Historical Building Code.”
As noted in the Project description, the Beach Access Repair Project proposes structural repairs and
improvements to the existing concrete sidewalks, retaining walls, and beach access stairways in order to
maintain structural integrity and safe public access. Current conditions adjacent to the Tamarack Avenue
restroom feature visible degradation of the concrete walkways, stairways, and walls such as concrete
spalling, cracking, and exposed rebar, likely due to the corrosive nature of the marine environment. In
places, soil has been eroded from foundation elements. Collectively, these conditions present potential
safety concerns to users of the restroom and adjacent paths.
The CADPR Historical Background Study acknowledges that prior: “…alterations made to the comfort
station’s exterior and interior areas, have not obscured or altered the comfort station’s outward appearance
or viewsheds.” Similarly, the proposed Beach Access Repair Project proposes no modifications to the
restroom structure, nor would the Project noticeably alter views of the restroom or its surroundings.
Project improvements adjacent to the restroom would be limited to in-kind replacement of stairs and
walkways sufficient to ensure public safety and would not negatively affect the historic integrity of the
restroom. These changes will maintain the same look and feel of the historic stairs being replaced.
As long as it can be shown that there are no substantial adverse changes to the significance of the historical
resource(s), or that any changes can be mitigated to a less than significant level, then a statement that the
Project will not have a significant effect on the environment can be prepared. CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5(b)(3) considers any adverse impacts to be mitigated if the project follows the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Therefore, mitigation, presented below,
would ensure that proposed alterations needed to comply with the ADA would be consistent with both the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation, and the California Historical Building
Code. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1, potential adverse impacts to historic resources
would be less than significant and that the Project would not materially impair those physical characteristics
that convey the resources’ historical significance for the purposes of CEQA.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CR-1 is required.
CR-1: Alterations needed to comply with the ADA would be consistent with both the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation, and the California Historical Building Code.
Proposed improvements shall be in-kind and exclusive to the sidewalk that surrounds the Comfort
Station, and the project shall mitigate to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical
resource. A description of specific improvements proposed for rehabilitation would be submitted
to State Parks for review and approval in advance of construction to ensure that the Comfort
Station retains its historic integrity.
A qualified archaeological monitor shall be present during all work taking place within 20’ of the
CRHR eligible Comfort Station. Photo documentation of the stairs, ramp, and Comfort Station
surrounding features (including the retaining walls and concrete slab/cantilevered deck) prior to
demolition is required. The qualified archaeologist will attend all pre-construction meetings to
consult with the grading and excavation contractors concerning excavation schedules,
archaeological field techniques, and safety issues. The qualified archaeologist will consult with the
qualified State Historian and Associate State Archaeologist regarding any impacts that have the
potential to affect the historic Comfort Station. The archaeologist shall retain the option to reduce
monitoring, with concurrence from the City and qualified historian, if it is determined that work
will not be impacting the resource.
b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The cultural study prepared for the proposed Project
demonstrates that there are no recorded archaeological resources within the Project area. The Project
would involve minor excavation activities grading into the slope at the base of the stairs for a new, small
retaining wall at Maple Avenue and Hemlock Avenue stairways. The potential to encounter archaeological
resources would be low. However, because cultural resources are known to occur within the vicinity of the
Project area, there is some potential for unknown archaeological resources to be present. To avoid
potential impacts to unknown archaeological resources, a qualified archaeologist and a qualified Native
American/cultural monitor should observe earth disturbing activities resulting from this Project. In the
event archaeological resources are encountered, all working in the immediate area of the finding will halt
until the significance of the finding is determined. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-2,
potential adverse impacts to unknown archaeological resources would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CR-2 is required.
CR-2: A qualified archaeological monitor and a qualified Native American/cultural monitor shall be
present during all ground disturbing activities related to this project as well as during any work
taking place within 20 feet of the CRHR eligible Comfort Station. The qualified archaeologist
and qualified Native American/cultural monitor will attend all pre-construction meetings to
consult with the grading and excavation contractors concerning excavation schedules,
archaeological field techniques, and safety issues. In the event that potential cultural resources
are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, the qualified archaeologist on site will notify
the Associate State Archaeologist from State Parks and City of Carlsbad immediately and all
work shall stop and/or be diverted in that area and within 30 feet of the find until the
significance of the resource can be assessed, and appropriate treatment measures developed
and implemented, if necessary. The Associate State Archaeologist from State Parks, an
appropriate representative from the City of Carlsbad, and a tribal representative shall assess
the significance of the cultural resource. The archaeologist and the tribal representative shall
make recommendations to the Lead Agency on the measures that will be implemented to
protect the cultural resource(s), including but not limited to, avoidance in place, excavation,
relocation, and further evaluation of the discoveries in accordance with California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If the resource is determined to be culturally significant, the
City of Carlsbad shall engage with the consulting Tribes to confer regarding the appropriate
treatment for the cultural resource. Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b), avoidance
is the preferred method of preservation.
Artifacts/cultural materials encountered during project work should be left in situ, if possible.
If project work or other planned future disturbance of that specific location requires the
cultural material to be relocated, it should be reburied as close to the original location as
possible, on State Parks property, in a location that will be free from future disturbance. If any
such artifacts are collected, they shall be prepared to a point of identification and permanent
preservation. Any/all collected items that have thoroughly been evaluated by a Luiseño Native
American monitor shall be repatriated to the consulting Tribes for reburial on project site. No
photographs shall be taken, and no invasive or non-invasive testing shall be conducted unless
prior written permission has been given by all the consulting Tribes. Materials of non-Native
American origin and as agreed upon by the tribal monitor may be collected for curation.
Curation must include obtaining an accession number and cataloging collections in the Excel
format approved for use with TMS. A monitoring report containing photograph documentation
and monitoring forms as well as an appended catalog of artifacts (if any are collected) shall be
prepared and shall signify completion of the mitigation. The archaeologist shall retain the
option to reduce monitoring, with concurrence from the State and City, if it is determined that
the sediments were previously disturbed or previously monitored.
c)Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: No human remains, or cemeteries are known to exist
within or near the Project area. Even though there are no recorded burial grounds within the Project area
and the potential to encounter cultural resources from the Project’s minor excavation activities would be
low, there is always the potential that subsurface construction activities associated with the proposed
Project could potentially damage or destroy previously undiscovered human remains. Accordingly, this
would be considered a potentially significant impact. In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition
of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5; Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5; Public
Resource Code Section 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 must be followed. A qualified archaeological monitor
and a qualified Native American/cultural monitor is recommended to be present during all ground
disturbance related to this Project, as these specialist monitors are qualified to identify buried cultural
materials. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-3, potential impacts to human remains
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure CR-3 is required.
CR-3: If human remains are encountered during excavation activities, all work shall halt in the vicinity
of the remains and the City of Carlsbad shall notify the County Coroner (California Public
Resource Code, Section 5097.98). In addition to the County Coroner, State Parks Associate
State Archaeologist/Tribal Liaison shall be notified. The County Coroner will determine whether
the remains are of forensic interest. If the Coroner, with the aid of a qualified archaeologist
and a qualified Native American/cultural monitor, determines that the remains are prehistoric,
he/she will contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will be
responsible for designating the most likely descendant (MLD), who will be responsible for the
ultimate disposition of the remains, as required by Section 7050.5 of the California Health and
Safety Code. The MLD shall make his/her recommendation within 48 hours of being granted
access to the site. If feasible, the MLD’s recommendation should be followed and may include
scientific removal and non-destructive analysis of the human remains and any items associated
with Native American burials (California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5). If the
landowner rejects the MLD’s recommendations, the landowner shall rebury the remains with
appropriate dignity on the property in a location that will not be subject to further subsurface
disturbance (California Public Resource Code, Section 5097.98).
VI.ENERGY
Would the Project:Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
wi
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
In
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
No
Im
p
a
c
t
a)Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy
resources during Project construction or operation?☐☐☒☐
b)Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy
or energy efficiency?☐☐☒☐
The following analysis is based on an Energy Calculation Memorandum prepared by Birdseye Planning
Group in June 2020 and is presented in Appendix E. The Energy Analysis evaluated a larger construction
project that included the proposed Project activities along with a proposed eastward expansion of the
coastal bluff trail into Carlsbad Boulevard and proposed modifications to the center landscape median in
Carlsbad Boulevard. Because the proposed Project involves less energy consumption construction activities
compared to the former proposed project and would not result in greater consumption of energy, the
analysis in Energy Calculation Memorandum is adequate to evaluate the proposed Project energy impacts.
PROJECT IMPACTS
a)Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources during Project construction or operation?
Less than Significant Impact: Based on the scope and sequence of construction activities, daily emissions
were conservatively estimated using the most intensive mix of equipment over the 180-day construction
period extending from September 2021 to May 2022. The common method is to calculate fuel demand
based on the six (6) phases of construction defined in CalEEMod 2016.3.2; demolition, site preparation,
grading, building construction, paving, and painting (i.e., architectural coating). However, for the purpose
of determining maximum daily air emissions and annual GHG emissions, a single phase was used and
incorporated the most intensive use of heavy equipment likely to occur during the construction cycle. These
data were used to conservatively estimate gasoline and diesel fuel demand during construction using the
most equipment intensive operation as the basis for the calculations. As referenced in the Air
Quality/Greenhouse Gas Study, the most intensive portion of the construction would require the following
equipment:
•Excavator, 158 horsepower at 0.38 load factor;
•Crane, 231 horsepower at 0.29 load factor;
•Off-Highway Truck, 402 horsepower at 0.38 load factor;
•Fork-Lift, 89 horsepower, 0.2 load factor;
•Generator Set, 84 horsepower, 0.74 load factor;
•Tractor/Loader/Backhoe, 97 horsepower, 0.37 horsepower; and
•Welder, 46 horsepower, 0.45 load factor.
Because this equipment mix would not be required daily throughout the duration of the Project,
calculations likely overestimate actual diesel fuel demand. During operation, emissions associated with
maintenance trips are not expected to be greater than what occurs under existing conditions. While
negligible operating emissions were quantified in the Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Report, fuel demand for
operation/maintenance of the improvements were not quantified.
The following tables show estimated gasoline demand for construction workers and construction
equipment. All fuel calculations are based on the total Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e) value calculated
for the building construction and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) using CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Data are
reported in annual metric tons of CO2e. Metric tons are converted to kilogram CO2e and then divided by a
conversion factor used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to estimate gallons of gasoline (8.87)
and diesel fuel (10.18) consumed based on carbon emissions. Table 12, Construction Worker Gasoline
Demand, shows the gasoline demand for construction workers for work occurring in 2021 and 2022. Table
13, Construction Equipment Diesel Demand, shows the diesel fuel demand for equipment operation in 2021
and 2022.
Table 12: Construction Worker Gasoline Demand
Year CO2E MT Kg CO2e Gallons
2021
Worker Fuel 14 14,000 1,578
2022
Worker Fuel 16 16,000 1,803
Total 3,381
Source: Birdseye Planning Group, Air Quality/Greenhouse Study, June 2020.
Table 13: Construction Equipment Diesel Demand
Year CO2E MT Kg CO2e Gallons
2021
Equipment Fuel 151 151,000 14,833
2022
Equipment Fuel 181 181,000 17,779
Total 32,612
Source: Birdseye Planning Group, Air Quality/Greenhouse Study, June 2020.
Petroleum-based fuel usage represents the highest amount of transportation energy potentially consumed
during construction, which would be utilized by both off-road equipment operating on the Project site and
on-road automobiles transporting workers to and from the Project site and on-road trucks transporting
equipment and supplies to the Project site.
The off-road construction equipment fuel usage was calculated through use of the off-road equipment
assumptions and fuel use assumptions, which found that the off-road equipment utilized during
construction of the proposed Project would consume 35,000 gallons of fuel. The amount of fuel consumed
in the state is approximately 19 billion gallons annually (15 billion-gasoline, four (4) billion-diesel, 2015).
The total amount of fuel consumed by the Project would represent 0.0000018421 percent of the total
amount consumed by the state annually. The amount construction-related fuel use would be nominal,
when compared to current fuel usage rates.
Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would be required to adhere to all state and
SCAQMD regulations for off-road equipment and on-road trucks, which provide minimum fuel efficiency
standards. As such, construction activities for the proposed Project would not result in the wasteful,
inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Impacts regarding transportation energy
would be less than significant. Implementation of the Project would not result in the need to manufacture
construction materials or create new building material facilities specifically to supply the proposed Project.
It is difficult to measure the energy used in the production of construction materials such as asphalt, steel,
and concrete, it is reasonable to assume that the production of building materials such as concrete, steel,
etc., would employ all reasonable energy conservation practices in the interest of minimizing the cost of
doing business. Additionally, the proposed Project would be constructed in accordance with all applicable
City Building and Fire Codes. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient,
or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during Project construction or operation. Potential
Impacts associated if the Project would be wasteful, inefficient, or the unnecessary consumption of energy
resources during Project construction or operation would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b)Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less than Significant Impact: The City of Carlsbad Climate Action Plan (CAP), adopted in July 2020, includes
goals, policies, and actions for Carlsbad to reduce GHG emissions and combat climate change. The CAP
includes:
•An inventory of Carlsbad’s citywide and local government GHG emissions.
•Forecasts of future citywide and local government GHG emissions.
•A comprehensive, City-wide strategy and actions to manage and reduce GHG emissions, with
emission targets through 2035.
•Actions that demonstrate Carlsbad’s commitment to achieve state GHG reduction targets by
creating enforceable measures and monitoring and reporting processes to ensure targets are met.
The timeframe for the Plan extends from the date of adoption through 2035.
The CAP also contains General Plan policies and actions that are intended to be implemented City wide to
reduce GHG emissions. These are organized according to the following categories: Project-specific actions
within each category are identified and the reduction in GHG emissions associated with these actions are
provided.
•Bikeway System Improvements.
•Pedestrian Improvements and Increased Connectivity.
•Traffic Calming.
•Parking Facilities and Policies.
•Transportation Improvements.
Section 2.0 of the CAP provides an emissions inventory. The total community GHG emissions were 705,744
MTCO2e in 2011. The largest sector is transportation, at 39 percent, followed by commercial and industrial
(32 percent), residential (25 percent), solid waste (three [3] percent) and wastewater (one [1] percent).
Total Carlsbad GHG emissions from the 2005 inventory were 630,310 metric tons carbon dioxide
equivalents (MTCO2e) per year. The 2020 target under state guidance is a 15 percent reduction from 2005
emissions, which corresponds to a target of 535,763 MTCO2e. The long range 2050 target is an 80 percent
reduction from 2020 emissions target. The 2050 target for Carlsbad is city-wide emissions of 107,153
MTCO2e. This is a substantial decrease in overall emissions, over 500,000 MTCO2e below baseline 2005
emissions levels. The horizon year for the current CAP is 2035. The CAP uses a linear trajectory in emissions
reductions between 2020 and 2050 to determine the 2035, target. Using current projections, the baseline
exceeds the 2020 reduction target by 15 percent, and the 2035 target by 49 percent. For the purpose of
this discussion, projects that contribute to a reduction in GHG emissions are presumed consistent with the
CAP. The proposed Project involves pedestrian improvements and, therefore, would be consistent with City
of Carlsbad CAP and potential impacts would be less than significant.
Section 5.0 of the CAP addresses implementation and monitoring measures, including how individual
projects should be evaluated for CEQA consistency. As stated, the California Air Pollution Control Officers
Association (CAPCOA) published various screening thresholds to guide lead agencies in determining which
projects require GHG analysis and mitigation for significant impacts related to climate change. Utilizing this
guidance, the City has determined that new development Projects emitting less than 900 MTCO2e annual
GHG would not contribute considerably to cumulative climate change impacts and, therefore, do not need
to demonstrate consistency with the CAP. Emissions associated with the proposed Project reflect the
construction phase and the annual emissions from construction are estimated to be approximately 5.91
MTCO2e. This is less than the 900 MTCO2e annual threshold and the Project would incorporate bicycle and
pedestrian improvements that are consistent with the CAP initiatives referenced above. As such, potential
impacts associated if the Project would conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy
or energy efficiency would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
VII.GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the Project: Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
wi
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
In
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a)Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i.Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued
by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
☐☐☒☐
ii.Strong seismic ground shaking?☐☐☒☐
iii.Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?☐☐☐☒
iv.Landslides?☐☐☐☒
b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?☐☐☒☐
c)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse?
☐☒☐☐
d)Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Section 1803.5.3 of the
California Building Code (2016), creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property?
☐☒☐☐
e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are
not available for the disposal of wastewater?
☐☐☐☒
f)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature?☐☒☐☐
The following analysis is based on the Geotechnical Basis of Design prepared by Terra Costa Consulting
Group, July 3, 2018. The report is presented in Appendix F. The Geotechnical Basis of Design report provides
preliminary geotechnical recommendations for the design and rehabilitation of the deteriorating public
access improvements in the Project area based on a robust review of geologic maps, previous geotechnical
reports, field mapping and geotechnical evaluations. The geotechnical recommendations examine the
following components:
•Foundation Design for Sidewalk Support/Retaining Walls
•Slab Design for On-Grade Sidewalk Slabs
•Retaining Walls
•Structural Fill Placement
PROJECT IMPACTS
a)Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving:
1)Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
Less than Significant Impact: The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act regulates
development near active faults in order to mitigate the hazards of surface fault-rupture. An active
fault is one that has experienced earthquake activity in the past 11,000 years. Under the Act, the
State Geologist is required to delineate special study zones along known active faults. The Act also
requires that prior to approval of a Project, a geologic study be prepared to define and delineate
any hazards from surface rupture and that a 50’ building setback be established from any known
trace hazard. According to the California Geological Survey and the City of Carlsbad General Plan
Public Safety Element Figure 6-5 Earthquake Faults, there are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Faults
within the Project area. The Newport-Inglewood Rose Canyon Fault located approximately four (4)
miles offshore of the City’s coastline would be the closest active fault. The likelihood that the fault
would cause an onsite ground rupture within the Project area would be low. Therefore, potential
impacts associated with ground rupture impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
2)Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than Significant Impact: The nearest fault to the Project would be the Newport-Inglewood-
Rose Canyon Fault, which runs offshore of the western edge of the city and is considered active.
Other faults in the region include the Coronado Bank, La Nacion, Elsinore, Agua Caliente, and San
Jacinto. In the event a moderate to large earthquake occurs along one of these faults, the Project
area could have the potential for periodic shaking, possibly of considerable intensity. The risk for
seismic shaking impacts within the Project area would be like other areas in the southern California
region. The proposed Project does not involve the construction of any habitat structures that would
increase the risk of injury or loss of property from seismic shaking impacts. The proposed Project
improvements would be designed to meet the most recent seismic standards of the California
Building Code to accommodate seismic loading requirements and withstand anticipated ground
shaking caused by an earthquake within an acceptable level of risk. With compliance of the
California Building Code Seismic Safety Standards, potential seismic shaking impacts would be less
than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
3)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
No Impact: Liquefaction is the phenomenon in which loosely deposited soils located below the
water table undergo rapid loss of shear strength due to excess pore pressure generation when
subject to strong earthquake induced ground shaking. Liquefaction is known generally to occur in
saturated or near-saturated cohesion-less soils at depths shallower than 50’ below the ground
surface. The City of Carlsbad General Plan Public Safety Element, Figure 6-5 Liquefaction Hazards,
identifies the Project area is not within a Liquefaction Hazard Zone. Therefore, no liquefaction
impacts are anticipated to occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
4)Landslides?
No Impact: The areas that are most susceptible to earthquake-induced landslides are steep slopes
in poorly cemented or highly fractured rocks, areas underlain by loose, weak soils, and areas on or
adjacent to existing landslide deposits. According to the California Department of Conservation,
California Geological Survey, the Project area is not within a vicinity of any existing or historic
landslide deposits and would not be subject to landslide risks.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less than Significant Impact: Implementation of the proposed Project would involve some earth disturbing
activities that would expose soils. The exposed soils could potentially be subject to erosion impacts caused
by water and wind. Additionally, construction equipment and vehicles could indirectly transport sediment
to offsite locations.
According to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Order 2009-009-DWQ, construction
projects that disturb one (1) or more acres of soil would be required to obtain coverage under a General
Construction Permit by the SWRCB. The earthwork activities for the proposed Project would disturb more
than one (1) acre and would be required to obtain a General Construction Permit. The General Construction
Permit would require the filing of a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB and the preparation of a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). As part of the SWPPP, erosion control BMPs would be identified and
implemented. With compliance of the General Construction Permit and conditions and implementation of
SWPPP, potential erosion impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
c)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result
of the Project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The proposed Project would involve expansion of the
coastal bluff sidewalk and replacement of existing stairways that extend along the coastal bluff to the
beach. The existing facing bluff is approximately 30’ in height with an overall gradient varying from about
1.5:1 to 2.5:1 (horizontal to vertical). Locally, in the erosion rills and gullies, slope inclinations are generally
steeper than 1:1 and in some cases are near vertical. Soils comprising the slope are generally very friable
sands with low to insignificant amounts of cohesion. As such, these soils are susceptible to surface
disturbance, which will eliminate any inherent cohesion, and result in accelerated mass wasting and
erosion. In addition, the slope soils are susceptible to water erosion, as evidenced by the erosion rills and
gullies that exist across the slope. The majority of the coastal bluff site is underlain by “old paralic deposits,”
which are commonly called “terrace deposits.” Along the bluff face, these terrace deposits appear to
generally consist of poorly indurated to locally well indurated, slightly silty, fine- to medium-grained
sandstone. The majority of terrace deposits at the site are friable and easily eroded. In places, upper
portions of the terrace deposits are cemented and eroded into near-vertical slopes with rills. Relatively
minor amounts of fill soils exist at the subject property. Deeper fills associated with the backfill of storm
drain trenches exist at the western termini of Walnut, Sycamore, and Maple Avenues. The onsite geologic
units (excluding fill) are generally known to exhibit adequate bearing characteristics for typical light
construction (i.e., walkways and restrooms, as exist at the site).
The Geotechnical Basis Report prepared by Terra Cota Consultants identifies recommendations to enhance
stability of the bluff, which include surface water control, vegetation and irrigation maintenance, rodent
control, and installation of retaining structures. Additionally, the Geotechnical Basis Report provides design
and construction of new foundation elements to include foundation design for sidewalks and retaining
walls, slab design for on-grade sidewalk slabs, retaining walls, and structural fill placement. Based on final
engineering, these recommendations would be considered and, where feasible, would be implemented to
ensure the stability of the proposed Project. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, potential
geologic constraints affecting the stability of the Project would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
GEO-1: The final design of the Project shall consider and, where feasible, implement the coast bluff
stability enhancement recommendations and the design and construction recommendations
provided in the Geotechnical Basis of Design prepared by Terra Cota Consultants, and
presented in Appendix F. Geotechnical recommendations focus on design and structural
considerations as well as materials and fill type to be used during construction. The
Geotechnical recommendations are listed below:
•Foundation Design for Sidewalk Support/Retaining Walls
•Slab Design for On-Grade Sidewalk Slabs
•Retaining Walls
•Structural Fill Placement
d)Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: Expansive soils are characteristically clay and are
prone to large volume changes (swelling and shrinking) that are directly related to changes in water
content. Based on the Geotechnical Basis Report prepared by Terra Cota Consultants, the onsite soils are
generally anticipated to have a very low to low expansion potential, though localized areas of soils with a
high expansion potential may exist at the site. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, potential
expansive soil impacts would avoid substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property and potential
impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure GEO-1 is required.
e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
No Impact: The proposed Project does not propose septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
f)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The San Diego Natural History Museum (SDNHM)
conducted a review of the museum’s geologic and paleontological records for the Project site and vicinity
on March 6, 2018. The Museum’s description of the rock units that underlie the site follows:
•Beach Deposits: Late Holocene marine beach deposits occur along the western side of the Project
site. These deposits consist of unconsolidated fine- and medium-grained sand and are still actively
accumulating along the shoreline. The SDNHM does not have any fossil localities from Holocene
beach deposits within a one (1) mile radius of the Project site. Holocene surficial deposits are
generally less than 11,000 years old and are assigned a low paleontological sensitivity based on
their young geologic age and the lack of known fossil localities. However, these deposits may
overlie paleontologically sensitive geologic units (Bay Point Formation and Sespe/Vaqueros
Formation, or Santiago Formation, see below) where the contact is relatively shallow.
•Bay Point Formation: The nearshore marine deposits of the Pleistocene-age (approximately
750,000 to 10,000 years old) Bay Point Formation underlie the northern and southern ends of the
Project site. More specifically, these deposits rest on the Bird Rock and St. Louis terraces
(approximately 45,000 years old), and are broadly equivalent to units 7 and 8, old paralic deposits,
of Kennedy and Tan (2007). The SDNHM does not have any fossil collection localities from the Bay
Point Formation within a one (1) mile radius of the Project site. Elsewhere in western San Diego
County, the Bay Point Formation has produced diverse assemblages of marine invertebrate fossils,
as well as remains of fossil vertebrates. The Bay Point Formation has been assigned a high
paleontological sensitivity for the diverse and well-preserved fossils of marine invertebrates and
marine vertebrates that have been recovered from these deposits.
•Sespe/Vaqueros Formation or Santiago Formation: Late Oligocene-age (approximately 28 to 23
million years old) deposits have been observed along the beach cliffs and road outcrops in the City
of Carlsbad, in areas mapped as the Eocene-age (approximately 49 to 40 million years old) Santiago
Formation. The age of these deposits has been determined by the presence of Sespia californica
(indicative of the early Arikareean North American Land Mammal Age), such as those recovered
from SDNHM locality 5292, located less than one (1) mile south of the Project site along the beach.
These deposits have been previously mapped as the Eocene-age Santiago Formation but are now
recorded in the SDNMH paleontology database as the undifferentiated Sespe/Vaqueros Formation.
Until a field survey can be conducted on site, it is not possible at this time to determine if units
mapped as Santiago Formation are middle Eocene or late Oligocene in age. However, both the
Sespe/Vaqueros Formation and Santiago Formation have produced significant terrestrial fossil
vertebrate localities in northern San Diego County and Orange County, and these units are
considered to have a high paleontological sensitivity (Deméré and Walsh, 1993; Eisentraut and
Copper, 2002).
The SDNHM records search revealed that one (1) fossil locality lies within one (1) mile of the Project site (in
the Sespe/Vaqueros Formation); however, none are recorded on the Project site. Because of the high
paleontological sensitivity of the Bay Point, Sespe/Vaqueros, and Santiago Formations and the presence of
a nearby fossil locality, there would be some potential to encounter paleontological resources during
excavations. The Project would involve minor excavation activities grading into the slope at the base of the
stairs for a new small retaining wall at Maple Avenue and Hemlock Avenue stairways. There could be the
potential that excavations could encounter Bay Point, Sespe/Vaqueros, and Santiago Formations. SDNHM
recommends the implementation of a paleontological resource mitigation program during any proposed
excavations that extend into these rock units.
To avoid potential impacts to unknown paleontological resources, a qualified paleontologist should observe
earth disturbing activities occurring at Maple Avenue and Hemlock Avenue stairways and in the event
paleontological resources are encountered, all working in the immediate area of the finding will halt until
the significance of the finding is determined. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-2,
potential impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
GEO-2: A qualified paleontologist should observe earth disturbing activities occurring at Maple Avenue
and Hemlock Avenue stairways. The paleontologist should attend the pre-construction
meeting to consult with the grading and excavation contractors concerning excavation
schedules, paleontological field techniques, and safety issues. In the event that potential
paleontological resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work shall stop in
that area and within 30’ of the find until a qualified paleontologist can assess the significance
of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures. Recovered specimens
shall be prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing
of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. Specimens shall be curated into
a professional, accredited museum repository with permanent retrievable storage such as the
SDNHM. A report of findings, with an appended itemized inventory of specimens, shall be
prepared and shall signify completion of the mitigation. The paleontologist shall retain the
option to reduce monitoring, with concurrence from the City, if it is determined that the
sediments were previously disturbed. Monitoring may also be reduced with concurrence from
the City if potentially fossiliferous units are not present or, if present, are determined to have
a low potential to contain fossil resources.
VIII.GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the Project: Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
wi
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
In
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a)Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment?☐☐☒☐
b)Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for
the purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?☐☐☒☐
The following analysis is based on an Air Quality/Greenhouse Study prepared by Birdseye Planning Group
in June 2020 and is presented in Appendix B. The Air Quality Analysis/Greenhouse Study evaluated a larger
construction project that included the proposed Project activities along with a proposed eastward
expansion of the coastal bluff trail into Carlsbad Boulevard and proposed modifications to the center
landscape median in Carlsbad Boulevard. Because the proposed Project involves less construction activities
compared to the former proposed project and would not result in greater GHG emission impacts, the
analysis Air Quality/Greenhouse Study is adequate to evaluate the proposed Project impacts.
BACKGROUND ANALYSIS
Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions on Earth as a whole, including
temperature, wind patterns, precipitation, and storms. Global temperatures are moderated by naturally
occurring atmospheric gases, including water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide
(N2O), ozone, and certain hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). These gases, known as GHGs, allow solar radiation
(sunlight) into the Earth’s atmosphere, but prevent radiative heat from escaping, thus warming the Earth’s
atmosphere. GHGs are emitted by both natural processes and human activities. The accumulation of GHGs
in the atmosphere regulates the Earth’s temperature. Emissions of GHGs in excess of natural ambient
concentrations are thought to be responsible for the enhancement of the greenhouse effect and contribute
to what is termed “global warming,” the trend of warming of the Earth’s climate from anthropogenic
activities. Global climate change impacts are by nature cumulative; direct impacts cannot be evaluated
because the impacts themselves are global rather than localized impacts.
California Health and Safety Code Section 38505(g) defines GHGs to include the following compounds: CO2,
CH4, N2O, ozone, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), HFCs, perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
As individual GHGs have varying heat-trapping properties and atmospheric lifetimes, GHG emissions are
converted to carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) units for comparison. The CO2e is a consistent methodology
for comparing GHG emissions because it normalizes various GHG emissions to a consistent measure. The
most common GHGs related to the Project are those primarily related to energy usage: CO2, CH4, and N2O.
In July 2020, the City of Carlsbad adopted an update to the 2015 CAP to outline actions that the City will
undertake to achieve its proportional share of State GHG emissions reductions. The CAP is a plan for the
reduction of GHG emissions in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. Pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(3), 15130(d), and 15183(b), a project’s incremental contribution to a
cumulative GHG emissions effect may be determined not to be cumulatively considerable if it complies
with the requirements of the CAP.
In March 2019, the City Council adopted several ordinances to implement the 2015 CAP aimed at reducing
GHG in new construction and alterations to existing buildings. The 2020 CAP update and more recent
adoption of the 2022 edition of the California Building Standards Code (effective January 1, 2023) do not
change the validity or effectiveness of the CAP implementing ordinances. Projects requiring building
permits will be subject to these ordinances, which address the following:
•Energy efficiency (Ord. No. CS-437);
•Solar photovoltaic systems (Ord. No. CS-437);
•Water heating systems using renewable energy (Ord. Nos. CS-437 and CS-348);
•Electric vehicle charging (Ord. No. CS-349); and
•Transportation demand management (Ord. No. CS-350).
The CAP established a screening threshold of 900 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year
for new development projects in order to determine if a project would need to demonstrate consistency
with the CAP through the Consistency Checklist and/or a self-developed GHG emissions reduction program
(Self-developed Program). Projects that are projected to emit fewer than 900 MTCO2e annually would not
make a considerable contribution to the cumulative impact of climate change and, therefore, do not need
to demonstrate consistency with the CAP. Regardless of this screening threshold, all projects requiring
building permits are subject to the above-referenced CAP ordinances. Such projects are, therefore,
required to show compliance with the ordinances through submittal of a completed Consistency Checklist
and shown on site plans and building plans.
For a proposed project that requests a land use change through a General Plan amendment, master plan/
specific plan amendment, and/or zone change, a project-specific GHG emissions analysis as described in
Section 4 of the P-31 GHG Guidance must be submitted as part of the discretionary permit application (City
of Carlsbad, 2020a). If the study reveals the project to be more GHG-intensive as compared to that assumed
for the existing land use designation, and the Project’s emissions would be at or above the screening threshold
of 900 MTCO2e, the project applicant would need to demonstrate compliance with the CAP ordinances
through completion of a CAP Consistency Checklist and identify additional mitigation measures to offset the
increase in emissions resulting from the land use change.
The City’s CAP contains a baseline inventory of GHG emissions for 2005, an updated baseline inventory for
2011, a projection of emissions to 2035 (corresponding to the General Plan horizon year), a calculation of
the City’s targets based on a reduction from the 2005 baseline, and emission reductions with
implementation of the CAP.
The City emitted a total of 630,310 MTCO2e in 2005 and 705,744 MTCO2e in 2011. Accounting for future
population and economic growth, the City projects GHG emissions of 1,007,473 MTCO2e in 2035. The CAP
set a target to achieve a 15 percent reduction from the 2005 baseline by 2020 based on the
recommendation by the CARB. The CAP also includes a reduction target to reduce emissions below the
2005 baseline by 49 percent by 2035. Therefore, the City must implement strategies that reduce emissions
to 535,763 MTCO2e in 2020 and 321,458 MTCO2e in 2035. By meeting the 2020 and 2035 targets, the City
will meet the 2030 state goal identified in Senate Bill 32 and maintain a trajectory to meet its proportional
share of the 2050 state target identified in Executive Order S-3-05.
PROJECT IMPACTS
a)Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact: The proposed Project would generate GHG emissions during construction
and operation. Construction activities generate GHG emissions though the combustion of gasoline and
diesel fuels in the engines of on- and off-road construction equipment and commuting vehicles used by
construction workers. Every phase of the construction process, including demolition, grading, paving, and
building emits GHGs.
Construction emissions are generated during each phase of construction based on the heaviest
construction equipment required and other factors determined as needed to complete construction by the
target completion year. As such, each day will have varying quantities of GHG emissions. As recommended
by the SCAQMD and the Association of Environmental Professionals (2010), total construction GHG
emissions are amortized over 30 years and added to operational GHG emissions (SCAQMD 2009). The
Project will include demolition of existing concrete, access stairs, railings, and other components. Limited
grading would be required to create new areas for concrete placement. All spoils are assumed to be
balanced onsite requiring no import/export. The Project construction is modeled assuming construction
would begin in September 2023 and be completed in May 2025 for a total of 180 construction days (36
weeks) (e.g., assumes 20 days per month for nine (9) months). CalEEMod defaults for construction phasing
equipment, worker trips, and vendor trips were used. Based on CalEEMod results, construction activity for
the Project would generate an estimated 362 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2E) as shown in
Table 14, Estimated Construction Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Amortized over a 30-year period (the
assumed life of the Project), construction of the proposed Project would generate 12 metric tons of CO2E
per year. Potential construction related greenhouse gas emission impacts would be less than significant.
Table 14: Estimated Construction Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Year Annual Emissions
(metric tons CO2E)
2021 165
2022 197
Total 362
Amortized over 30 years 12 metric tons per year
Source: Birdseye Planning Group, Air Quality/Greenhouse Study, June 2020.
OPERATIONAL INDIRECT AND STATIONARY DIRECT EMISSIONS
Long-term emissions relate to energy use, solid waste, water use, and transportation. Each source is
discussed below and includes the emissions associated with the anticipated emissions that would result
from the proposed Project.
Energy Use
GHGs are emitted where electricity and natural gas are used as energy sources. GHGs are generated during
the generation of electricity from fossil fuels offsite in power plants. These emissions are considered
indirect but are calculated in association with a building’s operation. Emissions were only calculated for the
direct combustion of natural gas. Building energy use is typically divided into energy consumed by the built
environment and energy consumed by uses that are independent of the construction of the building such
as plug-in appliances. In California, Title 24 governs energy consumed by the built environment, mechanical
systems, and some types of fixed lighting. The proposed Project would not create demand for natural gas
or electricity. Thus, as shown in Table 15, Estimated Construction Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the
overall net increase in energy use (i.e., natural gas and electricity) at the Project site would result in zero
metric tons of CO2E per year.
Table 15: Estimated Construction Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Year Annual Emissions
(metric tons CO2E)
Proposed Project
Electricity 0 metric tons
Natural Gas 0 metric tons
Total 0 metric tons
Source: Birdseye Planning Group, Air Quality/Greenhouse Study, June 2020.
Water Use Emissions
The amount of water used and wastewater generated by a project has indirect GHG emissions associated
with it. These emissions are a result of the energy used to supply, distribute, and treat the water and
wastewater. In addition to the indirect GHG emissions associated with energy use, wastewater treatment
can directly emit both CH4 and N2O. GHG emissions associated with supplying and treating the water and
wastewater are calculated for this Project based on outdoor water use consumption data for each land use
subtype. Based on information in the Pacific Institute’s Waste Not, Want Not: The Potential for Urban Water
Conservation in California 2003 (Cushing et al., 2003), a percentage of total water consumption was
dedicated to landscape irrigation. This percentage was used as an estimate of water demand needed to
clean and maintain the improvements. Table 16, Estimated Annual Solid Waste and Water Use Greenhouse
Gas Emissions, shows conservatively water demand would be estimated to generate approximately 3.4 MT
CO2E annually.
Table 16: Estimated Annual Solid Waste and Water Use Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emission Source Annual Emissions
(CO2E)
Water 3.40 metric tons
Solid Waste 0.01 metric tons
Total Water and Solid Waste 3.41 metric tons
Source: Birdseye Planning Group, Air Quality/Greenhouse Study, June 2020.
Solid Waste Emissions
The disposal of solid waste produces GHG emissions from anaerobic decomposition in landfills,
incineration, and transportation of waste. To calculate the GHG emissions generated by solid waste
disposal, the total volume of solid waste was calculated using waste disposal rates identified by California
Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. The methods for quantifying GHG emissions from solid
waste are based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change method, using the degradable organic
content of waste. For solid waste generated onsite, it was assumed that the Project would be involved in a
municipal recycling program that would achieve a 75 percent diversion rate, as required by AB 341. Table
18 shows that the Project would result in approximately 0.01 metric tons of CO2E per year associated with
solid waste disposed within landfills.
Transportation Emissions
Mobile source GHG emissions were estimated assuming two (2) daily trips for inspection and maintenance
purposes. Table 17, Estimated Annual Mobile Source Emissions of Greenhouse Gases, shows the estimated
mobile emissions of GHGs for the Project based on the estimated annual VMT of 3.050. As shown in Table
17, the Project would generate approximately 1.3 metric tons of CO2E associated with new vehicle trips.
Table 17: Estimated Annual Mobile Source Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
Emission Source Annual Emissions
(CO2E)
Proposed Project
Mobile Emissions (CO2 & CH4) 1.20 metric tons
Mobile Emissions (N2O) 0.06 metric tons
Total 1.26 metric tons
Source: Birdseye Planning Group, Air Quality/Greenhouse Study, June 2020.
Combined Construction, Stationary and Mobile Source Emissions
Table 18, Combined Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions, combines the net new construction, operational,
and mobile GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project. As discussed above, temporary emissions
associated with construction activity (approximately 36 metric tons CO2E) are amortized over 30 years (the
anticipated life of the Project). The combined annual emissions are conservatively estimated to be
approximately 5.91 metric tons per year in CO2E. This total represents less than 0.001 percent of California’s
total 2015 emissions of 440.4 million metric tons. The majority of the Project’s GHG emissions are
associated with the construction phase. This would be less than the 900 MT annual significance threshold.
Table 18: Combined Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emission Source Annual Emissions
(CO2E)
Construction 12.00 metric tons
Operational
Energy
Solid Waste
Water
0.00 metric tons
0.01 metric tons
3.40 metric tons
Mobile 1.30 metric tons
Total 16.71 metric tons
Source: Birdseye Planning Group, Air Quality/Greenhouse Study, June 2020.
GHG CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed Project would be under the annual threshold of 900 MT CO2E. Further, the Project would
incorporate pedestrian and bicycle improvements which are consistent with the General Plan and CAP
initiatives referenced above. Thus, the beach access improvements would not have a significant or adverse
effect on global climate change. Impacts would be less than significant (thresholds a and b).
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b)Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant Impact: As stated above, the City of Carlsbad adopted a CAP in 2020 that outlines
actions that the City will undertake to achieve its proportional share of State GHG emissions reductions.
The CAP demonstrates that, with implementation of applicable General Plan goals and policies, coupled
with State and federal actions, and execution of CAP measures and actions, the City would reduce GHG
emissions in alignment with State goals established by AB 32 and Senate Bill 32, and maintain a trajectory
to meet its proportional share of the 2050 state target identified in Executive Order S-3-05. As described in
the response above, the proposed Project would be under the annual threshold 900 MT CO2E. Further, the
Project would incorporate pedestrian and bicycle improvements which are consistent with the General Plan
and CAP. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
IX.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the Project:Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
wi
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
In
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
☐☐☒☐
b)Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the environment?☐☐☒☐
c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
☐☐☒☐
d)Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or environment?
☐☐☒☐
e)For a Project located within an airport land use plan, or where such
a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area?
☐☐☒☐
f)Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?☐☐☐☒
g)Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?☐☐☐☒
The following analysis incorporates hazardous site information obtained from the San Diego RWQCB
GeoTracker Search Database accessed in December 2019.
PROJECT IMPACTS
a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant Impact: Title 22 of the CCR, Division 4.5, Chapter 11, Article 3 classifies hazardous
materials into the following four (4) categories based on their properties: toxic (causes human health
effects), ignitable (has the ability to burn), corrosive (causes severe burns or damage to materials), and
reactive (causes explosions or generates toxic gases). Hazardous materials have been and are commonly
used in commercial, agricultural, and industrial applications as well as in residential areas to a limited
extent. Hazardous wastes are hazardous materials that no longer have practical use, such as substances
that have been discarded, discharged, spilled, contaminated, or are being stored prior to proper disposal.
The health impacts of hazardous materials exposure are based on the frequency of exposure, the exposure
pathway, and individual susceptibility.
There would be the potential that hazardous materials could be transported and handled within the Project
area. The transportation of hazardous materials through the City would be required to comply with state
and federal laws and regulations involving the transportation of hazardous materials. Additionally,
construction operations associated with the proposed Project would involve the handling of incidental
amounts of hazardous materials, such as fuels, oils, and solvents. The construction and operation of the
proposed Project would be required to comply with local, state, and federal laws and regulations regarding
the handling and storage of hazardous materials. Compliance with local, state, and federal laws and
regulations regarding the handling and storage of hazardous material would reduce potential hazardous
material impacts to the public to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
Less than Significant Impact: The construction operations associated with the proposed Project would
involve the handling of incidental amounts of hazardous substances, such as fuels, oil, and solvents. The
level of risk associated with the accidental release of hazardous substances would not be considered
significant due to the small volume and low concentration of hazardous materials that would be utilized
during construction and identify standard construction controls and safety procedures that would avoid or
minimize the potential for accidental release of hazardous substances into the environment. Construction
safety measures including the use of silt fences and temporary construction fencing would be used during
construction and demolition activities to prevent debris from entering the beach or public areas. The most
relevant measures would pertain to Material Delivery and Storage; Material Use; and Spill Prevention and
Control. These measures would outline the required improvements and procedures for preventing impacts
of hazardous materials to workers and the environment during construction. With compliance with local,
state and federal hazardous material laws and regulations and implementation of Material Delivery and
Storage; Material Use; and Spill Prevention and Control BMPs, potential hazardous impacts involving the
accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less than Significant Impact: The closest school site to the Project would be Jefferson Elementary School
located approximately 0.35 miles to the east of the proposed Project area. As indicated previously, the
construction and operation of the proposed Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous materials where they would pose a threat to public safety. The fact that the Project area is
located more than 0.25 miles to a school site and the proposed Project would be required to comply with
local, state, and federal regulations to protect inadvertent release of hazardous materials, the potential
impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
d)Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
Less than Significant Impact: A database search of the SWRCB GeoTracker Database was conducted to
determine the presence of any hazardous waste sites within the vicinity of the Project area that could
adversely impact the proposed Project. As shown in Figure 16, Hazardous Waste Sites Geotracker Radius
Search, there are no hazardous cleanup sites within the proposed Project footprint. Additionally, there are
no Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Cleanup sites or Hazardous Waste Sites in the nearby
area. There are two (2) Permitted Underground Storage Tank (UST) sites at the Carlsbad by the Sea
Retirement Community approximately 900’ northwest of the Project site and two (2) completed-closed
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) Cleanup Site approximately 1,250’ northwest of the Project
site. Additionally, there are two (2) completed-closed cleanup Project sites in the vicinity of the proposed
Project located at the Oceanside Glasstile Co. and Acacia Apartments, approximately 1,500’ northwest and
1,200’ north of the Project site, respectively. All cleanup sites and permitted facilities listed above would
pose no hazardous risk for the proposed Project. Based on the fact that there are no known hazardous sites
or ongoing clean-up activities occurring within the Project area that would pose a hazardous risk, the
construction and operation of the proposed Project would not create significant hazards to the public or
environment.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
e)For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two (2) miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area?
Less than Significant Impact: The closest airport to the Project area would be the McClellan-Palomar
Airport, located approximately 3.5 miles to the southeast. According to City of Carlsbad General Plan Public
Safety Element, Figure 6-7, McCellan-Palomar Airport Influence Area/Safety Area, the Project area is not
within an airport influence area and would not be subject to safety hazards or excessive overhead aircraft
noise. Therefore, potential safety impacts associated with McClellan-Palomar Airport would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
f)Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact: The City of Carlsbad Fire Department’s Emergency Preparedness Division supports the
emergency organization by further defining the scope of the City’s Emergency Management Program and
large-scale incident response activities. Carlsbad is a participant in the Unified San Diego County Emergency
Services Organization (USDCESO). The USDCESO Operational Area Emergency Plan contains evacuation
routes resulting from a variety of emergencies. Local jurisdictions would work with law enforcement
agencies to identify and establish transportation points. Transportation points would function to collect
and transport people without transportation resources to evacuation points. Evacuation routes would be
determined based on the location and extent of the incident and would include as many pre-designated
transportation routes as possible. Important roadway characteristics and factors that should be considered
when selecting an evacuation route include:
•Shortest route to the designated destination areas;
•Maximum capacity;
•Ability to increase capacity and traffic flow using traffic control strategies;
•Maximum number of lanes that provide continuous flow through the evacuation area;
•Availability of infrastructure to disseminate real-time conditions and messages to evacuees
enroute, such as changeable message signs; and
•Minimal number of potentially hazardous points and bottlenecks, such as bridges, tunnels, lane
reductions.
The long-term operation of the proposed Project would not include any features that would impair access
to evacuation routes identified in the City, or otherwise conflict with an emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan. The construction activities for the proposed Project would not involve any
activities that would physically impair or interfere with emergency response plans for the Project area.
During construction, there could be the potential for temporary lane closures. However, the temporary
lane closures would be for a short period of time and would be implemented in accordance with
recommendations provided in the California Temporary Traffic Control Handbook to ensure that
emergency access would be maintained all times. Potential impacts associated with conflicts to emergency
response plans would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
g)Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
No Impact: According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the Project area is not
within a Wildland Fire Hazard Area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not expose
people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires. Therefore, no indirect fire hazard impacts are anticipated to occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
BEACH ACCESS REPAIR PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 16
Hazardous Waste Sites Geotracker Radius Search
Source: State of California, State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker; July 2020.
X.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the Project:Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
wi
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
In
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground
water quality?☐☐☒☐
b)Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with ground water recharge such that the Project may
impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
☐☐☐☒
c)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river
or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner, which
would:
i.Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite;☐☐☒☐
ii.Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite ☐☐☒☐
iii.Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
☐☐☒☐
iv.Impede or redirect flood flows?☐☐☒☐
d)In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutantsdue to Project inundation?☐☐☒☐
e)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control
plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?☐☐☒☐
EXISTING SETTING
The Project area is included within the Carlsbad Watershed Management Area (WMA) and is comprised of
six (6) distinct hydrologic areas covering a land area of 211 square miles. The Carlsbad WMA extends from
the headwaters above Lake Wohlford in the east to the Pacific Ocean in the west, and borders San Luis Rey
and San Dieguito Watersheds to the north and south. There are numerous important surface hydrologic
features within the Carlsbad WMA including four (4) unique coastal lagoons, three (3) major creeks, and
two (2) large water storage reservoirs. The downstream receiving water body that would have the potential
to be affected by the proposed Project would be the Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the Pacific Ocean.
Onsite Drainage
The onsite drainage for the Project area can be divided into three (3) primary drainage areas: 1) the upper
sidewalk, parkway, and roadway area (Upper Area); 2) the Tamarack Avenue Area (Tamarack Area); and 3)
the beach access stairways (Lower Area). Runoff from the entire site is characterized by a combination of
sheet, shallow concentrated, and subgrade open channel flow.
UPPER AREA
Between Pine Avenue and just north of Juniper Avenue, the upper sidewalk area is adjacent to the Carlsbad
Boulevard roadway. From just north of Juniper Avenue to Tamarack Avenue, the upper sidewalk is
separated from the roadway by a vegetated parkway. Runoff from the entire Upper Area flows to a
combination of catch basin and area inlets that ultimately convey flows to a mainline storm drain that runs
beneath Carlsbad Boulevard. For the entirety of the Project area, roadway runoff from the Upper Area
flows to the gutter along the west side of the roadway. Gutter flows between Pine Avenue and
approximately just south of Acacia Avenue are conveyed to two (2) curb inlet catch basins, one (1) located
between Sycamore Avenue and Chestnut Avenue and the other just south of Maple Avenue. Gutter flows
between Cherry Avenue and just north of Tamarack Avenue are conveyed to one (1) of three (3) grated
drop inlet catch basins located between Cherry Avenue and just south of Hemlock Avenue. The
northernmost inlet is located on the west side of the upper sidewalk at Cherry Avenue. A curb cut at this
location allows flows to discharge across the upper sidewalk and into the inlet. The remaining two (2) catch
basins are located adjacent to the curb in a section of street parking area along Carlsbad Boulevard. Catch
basin inlets and area drains in the parkway from just north of Juniper Avenue to Tamarack Avenue capture
flows from both the parkway and upper sidewalk area. All of the aforementioned inlets connect to the
mainline storm drain system beneath Carlsbad Boulevard. This mainline storm drain outfalls into Agua
Hedionda Lagoon beneath the Carlsbad Boulevard Lagoon overpass.
TAMARACK AREA
Stormwater runoff from the western portion of the roadway in the vicinity of Tamarack Avenue sheet flows
to gutters along the Carlsbad Boulevard/Tamarack Avenue intersection. All of the flows are ultimately
conveyed via curb and gutter flow down the western edge of the Tamarack Avenue beach access roadway
to a riprap outfall on the beach.
LOWER AREA
Precipitation that falls on the Project site west of the Upper Area concrete sidewalk generates runoff that
flows overland westerly down the coastal bluff and lower stairways toward the lower sidewalk. Flows are
conveyed across the lower sidewalk and outfall on the beach via drainage openings at the base of the
existing sea wall.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan
Within the Carlsbad Watershed, surface water bodies, coastal lagoons, coastal waters, and groundwater
basins are regulated by the San Diego RWQCB Basin Plan (Basin Plan). The basin identifies and provides for
the protection of beneficial uses, environmentally sensitive areas, and impaired water bodies.
Beneficial Uses
The Basin Plan designates beneficial uses for surface waters, coast streams and coastal waters in Carlsbad
Watershed. The beneficial uses include quantitative and narrative criteria for a range of water quality
constituents that are applicable to certain receiving water bodies in order to protect the beneficial uses.
The beneficial uses in the Basin Plan are described in Table 19, Beneficial Use Descriptions, that are required
to be protected. Additionally, the Basin Plan identifies impaired water bodies and environmental sensitive
areas within the region that afford additional protection.
Table 19: Beneficial Use Descriptions
Abbreviation Beneficial Use
GWR Groundwater Recharge waters are used for natural or artificial recharge of groundwater for
purposes that may include, but are not limited to future extraction, maintaining water quality, or
halting saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers.
REC 1 Water Contact Recreation waters are used for recreational activities involving body contact with
water where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. These uses may include, but are not limited
to swimming, wading, water skiing, skin and scuba diving, surfing, whitewater activities, fishing,
and use of natural hot springs.
REC 2 Non-Contact Water Recreation waters are used for recreational activities involving proximity to
water, but not normally body contact with water where ingestion of water would be reasonably
possible. These uses may include, but are not limited to picnicking, sunbathing, hiking,
beachcombing, camping, boating, tide pool and marine life study, hunting, sightseeing, and
aesthetic enjoyment in-conjunction with the above activities.
WARM Warm waters support warm water ecosystems that may include but are not limited to
preservation and enhancement of aquatic habitats, vegetation, fish, and wildlife, including
invertebrates.
LWARM Limited Warm Freshwater Habitat waters support warm water ecosystems that are severely
limited in diversity and abundance.
COLD Cold Freshwater habitat waters support cold water ecosystems.
BIOL Preservation of Biological Habitats of Special Significance waters support designated areas of
habitats.
WILD Wildlife Habitat waters support wildlife habitats that may include but are not limited to the
preservation and enhancement of vegetation and prey species used by waterfowl and other
wildlife.
RARE Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species (RARE) waters support habitats necessary for the survival
and successful maintenance of plant or animal species designated under state or federal law as
rare, threatened, or endangered.
MUN Municipal and Domestic Supply waters are used for community, military, municipal, or individual
water supply systems. These uses may include, but are not limited to, drinking water supply.
AGR Agricultural Supply waters are used for farming, horticulture, or ranching. These uses may include,
but are not limited to irrigation, stock watering, and support of vegetation for range grazing.
IND Industrial Service Supply waters are used for industrial activities that do not depend primarily on
water quality. These uses may include, but are not limited to mining, cooling water supply,
hydraulic conveyance, gravel washing, fire protection and oil well depressurization.
PROC Industrial Process Supply waters are used for industrial activities that depend primarily on water
quality. These uses may include but are not limited to process water supply and all uses of water
related to product manufacture or food preparation.
NAV Navigation waters are used for shipping, travel, or other transportation by private, commercial, or
military vessels.
POW Hydropower Generation waters are used for hydroelectric power generation.
COMM Commercial and sport fishing waters are used for commercial or recreational collection of fish or
other organisms.
EST Uses of water that support estuarine ecosystems including, but not limited to preservation or
enhancement of estuarine habitats, vegetation, fish, shellfish, or wildlife.
WET Uses of water that support wetland ecosystems including, but not limited to preservation or
enhancement of wetland habitats, vegetation, fish, shellfish, or wildlife, and other unique wetland
functions that enhance water quality, such as providing flood and erosion control, stream bank
stabilization, and filtration and purification of naturally occurring contaminants.
MAR Use of water that support marine ecosystems including, but not limited to preservation or
enhancement of marine habitats, vegetation such as kelp, fish, shellfish, or wildlife.
Abbreviation Beneficial Use
MIGR Uses of water that support habitats necessary for migration, acclimatization between fresh and
saltwater, or other temporary activities by aquatic organisms, such as anadromous fish.
SPWN Use of water that supports high-quality aquatic habitats suitable for reproduction and early
development of fish.
SHELL Use of water that supports habitats suitable for the collection of filter-feeding shellfish for human
consumption, commercial or sports purposes.
Source: California Water Boards, San Diego Basin Water Quality Control Plan, updated June 2019.
As shown in Table 20, Study Area Water Body Beneficial Uses, the Basin Plan identifies beneficial uses for
the Pacific Ocean.
Table 20: Study Area Water Body Beneficial Uses
Beneficial Agua Hedionda
Lagoon Pacific Ocean
AGR NL NL
IND E E
NAV NL E
REC 1 E E
REC 2 E E
WARM NL NL
COMM NL E
BIOL E E
WILD E E
RARE E E
MIGR E E
SPAWN E E
SHELL E E
MAR E E
Abbreviations: E - Existing, NL - Not Listed
Source: California Water Boards, San Diego Basin Water Quality Control Plan,
updated June 2019.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
The San Diego RWQCB defines Environmentally Sensitive Areas as those areas that include, but are not
limited to:
•All CWA Section 303(d) impaired waters (see below).
•Areas designated as Areas of Special Biological Significance by the SWRCB in the Water Quality
Control Plan for the San Diego Region (aka the Basin Plan).
•State Water Quality Protected Areas.
•Water bodies designated with the RARE Beneficial Use category by the SWRCB in the Basin Plan
(RARE).
•Areas designated as preserves or their equivalent under the NCCP.
•Any other Environmentally Sensitive Areas identified by the County.
The Basin Plan identifies RARE beneficial uses for the Pacific Ocean and Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Therefore,
both water bodies are considered environmentally sensitive areas.
SECTION 303(D) WATER BODIES
Under Section 303(d) of the CWA, the SWRCB is required to develop a list of impaired water bodies. Each
of the individual RWQCBs are responsible for establishing priority rankings and developing action plans,
referred to as total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) to improve water quality of water bodies included in the
303(d) list. There are no 3093 (d) Listed Water Bodies within the Project area that the proposed Project
would discharge into.
Stormwater Management
Section 402 of the CWA established the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to control
water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into WOUS. In the State of California,
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has authorized the SWRCB to be the permitting authority to
implement the NPDES program. The SWRCB issues two (2) baseline general permits, one (1) for industrial
discharges and one (1) for construction activities (General Construction Permit). Additionally, the NPDES
Program includes the long-term regulation of storm water discharges from medium and large cities through
the MS4 Permit Program.
SHORT-TERM STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
The San Diego RWQCB would be responsible for regulating stormwater discharges within the Project area.
Storm water discharges from construction sites with a disturbed area of one (1) or more acres are required
to either obtain individual NPDES permits for storm water discharges or be covered by a General
Construction Permit. Coverage under the General Construction Permit requires filing a Notice of Intent with
the State Water Resources Control Board and preparation of SWPPP. Each applicant under the Construction
General Permit must ensure that a SWPPP would be prepared prior to grading and implemented during
construction. The primary objective of the SWPPP is to identify, construct, implement, and maintain BMPs
to reduce or eliminate pollutants in storm water discharges and authorized non-storm water discharges
from the construction site during construction. BMPs include programs, technologies, processes, practices,
and devices that control, prevent, remove, or reduce pollution.
LONG-TERM STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
The stormwater management regulatory requirements for the site include water quality requirements per
the San Diego RWQCB Board MS4 Permit. New and redevelopment projects that would result in the
disturbance of one (1) acre or more of land or would create more than 5,000 square feet of impervious
surfaces are subject to the post-construction priority development project requirements in the Carlsbad
Storm Water Standards Manual. Almost all projects must meet minimum standard storm water
requirements, including the following Light Impact Development (LID) requirements:
•Drain a portion of impervious areas into pervious areas.
•Design and construct pervious areas, if any, to effectively receive and infiltrate runoff from
impervious areas, taking into account soil conditions, slope, and other pertinent factors.
•Construct a portion of paved areas with low traffic and appropriate soil conditions with permeable
surfaces.
PROJECT IMPACTS
a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant Impact: During construction, there would be the potential that degraded surface
water runoff generated from the construction site could be conveyed into local drainage facilities.
Depending on the constituents in the surface water, the water quality of Project area surface water bodies
could be reduced, which could conflict with beneficial uses established for the Project area surface water
bodies. The proposed Project would disturb more than one (1) acre of area and would, therefore, be
required to obtain a NPDES State General Construction Permit from the SWRCB. In accordance with the
State General Construction Permit, the Project Applicant would be required to file a Notice of Intent (NOI)
to the Storm Water Report Tracking System and obtain a waste discharger identification number from the
SWRCB. Additionally, the General Construction Permit requires the development and implementation of a
SWPPP. The SWPPP would identify BMPs to minimize degraded surface water runoff impacts. Such
measures would include a site map that shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed
buildings, parking areas, roadways, storm drain collection and discharge points before and after
construction. Additionally, structural BMPs placement of such sandbags or waddles near drainages, use of
rumble racks or wheel washers, or other measures would be implemented to avoid sediment transport.
Compliance with the NPDES short-term regulatory requirements would reduce short-term construction
related impacts to water quality to a less than significant level.
As part of the initial evaluation of the Project, the Project Engineer completed the City’s Storm Water
Standards Questionnaire to determine the Project’s required water quality compliance and improvements.
Based on the City’s Storm Water Standards Questionnaire, the proposed Project would not be classified as
a Priority Project and would not be required to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). As a
non-Priority Project, the Project would be required to be constructed in accordance with United States EPA
(USEPA) Green Streets guidance which requires the Project to implement site design, source control and
treatment control BMPs to the maximum extent practicable. With compliance with USEPA Green Streets
guidance, the Project would not create runoff that would violate water quality standards and degrade water
quality.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b)Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
No Impact: The Project area is not within an area that has a managed groundwater basin. The proposed
Project would have no activities that would extract groundwater or interfere with groundwater recharge
activities.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
c)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which would:
1)Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite?
Less than Significant Impact: During earthwork activities, there would be the potential that
uncovered soils on the Project site could be exposed to water erosion and/or wind erosion impacts.
Additionally, there would be the potential that construction vehicles and construction equipment
could transport sediment onto local streets and into local drainage systems. The proposed Project
would disturb more than one (1) acre of area and would be required to obtain a General
Construction Permit from the SWRCB. The General Construction Permit would require preparation
and implementation of a SWPPP to avoid erosion and sediment transfer impacts. With obtaining
General Construction Permit and preparation and implementation of a SWPPP, potential erosion
and sediment transfer impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
2)Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or offsite?
Less than Significant Impact: The Project site is currently undeveloped and drains southerly and
westerly to existing drainage channels. The construction of the proposed Project would introduce
3,574 square feet of additional impervious surfaces into the Project area associated with sidewalk
widening from Pine Avenue to Cherry Avenue along Carlsbad Boulevard. The addition of new
impervious surfaces would slightly increase the existing rate of surface water runoff. Presently,
there are no deficient stormwater system conditions. Implementation of the proposed Project
would not substantially increase the rate of surface water runoff where it would result in onsite or
offsite flooding. Potential impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
3)Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources ofpolluted runoff?
Less than Significant Impact: The proposed Project is considered a redevelopment Project and
would create and replace impervious surfaces. The Project involves the retrofitting of paved
sidewalks and has been designed to meet the following criteria: be designed and constructed to
direct storm water runoff to adjacent vegetated areas or other non-erodible permeable areas, and
designed and constructed to be hydraulically disconnected from paved streets or roads. Based on
the City’s Storm Water Standards Questionnaire, the proposed Project would not be classified as a
Priority Project and not be required to prepare a WQMP. As a non-Priority Project, the Project
would be required to be constructed in accordance with USEPA Green Streets guidance, which
require the Project to implement site design, source control and treatment control BMPs to the
maximum extent practicable. With compliance with USEPA Green Streets guidance, the Project
would not create runoff that exceeds existing or planned storm water systems or provide additional
sources of pollution. Potential water quality impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
4)Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than Significant Impact: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prepares Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that identify 100-year and 500-year flood zones. The City of Carlsbad
Public Safety Element, Figure 6-1, Potential Flood Hazards, identifies that the coastline along the
Project area is within a special flood hazard area. The proposed Project would involve the expansion
and repair of existing pedestrian paths and access ways to the coastline. The Project would not
place any new structures within a floodplain that impede or redirect flood flows.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
d)In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation?
Less than Significant Impact: The City of Carlsbad General Plan Public Safety Element, Figure 6-3, Maximum
Tsunami Projected Run-Up, identifies tsunami and seiche hazards within the Project area.
Tsunamis are long wavelength ocean waves generated by sudden movements of the ocean bottom during
events such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, or landslides. The City’s General Plan identifies that the
only areas identified within the City of Carlsbad as having risk for tsunami run-up are the immediate vicinity
of the Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda, and Batiquitos Lagoons.
Seiches are defined as wave-like oscillatory movements in enclosed or semi-enclosed bodies of water such
as lakes or reservoirs. Potential effects from seiches include flooding damage and related hazards in
surrounding areas from spilling or sloshing waves, as well as increased pressure on containment structures.
The County of San Diego maps zones of high risk for dam inundation throughout the County. The high-risk
areas are located east of the Agua Hedionda and Batiquitos Lagoons.
The Project area is not located in a high-risk area for potential inundation from any stored water body or
within a tsunami run-up area that would increase the risk for the release of pollutants. Potential impacts
associated with the release of pollutants from a flood hazard would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
e)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Less than Significant Impact: Implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with beneficial
uses established for receiving water bodies for the Project, would not conflict with water quality objectives
or further impair with existing impaired water bodies. The proposed Project would implement SWPPP and
WQMP BMPs and would treat onsite low flows to protect beneficial uses for surface waters identified in
the Basin Plan.
The California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) was passed in 2014. The law provides
increased authority for local agencies to manage groundwater and requires that most groundwater basins
be under sustainable management within 20 years in a manner that would be maintained without causing
undesirable results. The Project site is not within an area that has a managed groundwater basin. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict or obstruct implementation of a sustainable
groundwater management plan.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
XI.LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the Project:Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
wi
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
In
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a)Physically divide an established community?☐☐☐☒
b)Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any
land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?☐☐☐☒
PROJECT IMPACTS
a)Physically divide an established community?
No Impact: The proposed Project involves the enhancement of existing pedestrian sidewalk and coastal
access. The proposed Project improvements would not physically divide any established community or
neighborhood. The proposed improvements would enhance pedestrian circulation within the Project area
and surrounding neighborhoods. The proposed improvements would not introduce any physical barriers
within the Project area that would physically divide an established community. No adverse land use impacts
would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b)Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
No Impact: The relevant planning programs associated with the proposed Project would be the City’s
General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and the City’s Trails Master Plan. As shown in Figure 17, Trails Master
Plan, the City’s Trails Master Plan identifies an Existing Type 5 Sidewalk Connector along Carlsbad
Boulevard. The Master Plan establishes standard and design criteria for various levels of trails. A Type 5
Trail is intended to support nearby roadway connections, to walk or bike to other open space trails and
trailheads. The Master Plan for Type 5 Trails identifies a minimum 5’ walk or a 4’-6” planted parkway with
an adjacent bike lane or on street parking to move higher speeding vehicles away from walking areas. The
existing sidewall is approximately 8’. The proposed improvements would expand the existing sidewalk to
9’-6” and would maintain the existing bike lane that is currently adjacent to the sidewalk and would not
conflict with the Trails Master Plan. Additionally, the proposed Project would be consistent with the
following goals and polices from the City’s General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and Trails Master Plan
provided in Table 21, Relevant Supporting Policies. The Project’s compliance with the City’s General Plan,
Local Coastal Program, Sustainable Mobility Plan, and the Trails Master Plan would ensure that the Project
would not result in conflicts that would result in a significant impact to the environment.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
BEACH ACCESS REPAIR PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 17
Trails Master Plan
Source: City of Carlsbad, Trails Master Plan; adopted August 27, 2019.
Table 21: Relevant Supporting Policies
GENERAL PLAN
Trails Master Plan
Goal 1: Create a Connected and Complete Trails System.
Objective: Provide a well distributed trail system that serves all sub-areas of Carlsbad with close and convenient
access to the centers of residential development, tourist facilities, and other activity centers. A well distributed
system is not only equitable, but it increases the chances of residents walking or biking within the subarea.
Goal 2: Accommodate a Variety of Trail Users in a Safe and Environmentally Sensitive Manner.
Objective: Continue to develop multi-use trails that support a variety of users.
Goal 3: Identify Existing and Future Trail Development.
Goal 5: Manage, operate, and maintain trails to encourage their proper use.
Land Use and Community Design Element
Goal/Policy 2-P.53j: Plan and design Carlsbad Boulevard and adjacent public land (Carlsbad Boulevard coastal
corridor) according to the following guiding principles, Reimagining of Carlsbad Boulevard shall be visionary. The
reimagined Carlsbad Boulevard corridor will incorporate core community values articulated in the Carlsbad
Community Vision by providing: (a) physical connectivity through multi-modal mobility improvements including
bikeways, pedestrian trails, and a traffic-calmed street; (b) social connectivity through creation of memorable
public spaces; and (c) economic vitality through a combination of visitor and local-serving commercial, civic, and
recreational uses and services.
Goal/Policy 2-P.64: Enhance public access and public use in the area by allowing compatible public trails,
community gathering spaces, and public and private, active, and passive park and recreation uses.
Mobility Element
Goal 3-G.1: Keep Carlsbad moving with livable streets that provide a safe, balanced, cost-effective, multi-modal
transportation system (vehicles, pedestrians, bikes, transit), accommodating the mobility needs of all community
members, including children, the elderly, and the disabled.
Goal 3-P.20: Engage Caltrans, the Public Utilities Commission, transit agencies, the Coastal Commission, and
railroad agency(s) regarding opportunities for improved connections within the City, including; improved
connections across the railroad tracks at Chestnut Avenue and other locations, completion and enhancements
to the Coastal Rail Trail and/or equivalent trail along the coastline, improved connectivity along Carlsbad
Boulevard for pedestrians and bicyclists, such as a trail, improved access to the beach and coastal recreational
opportunities, and improved crossings for pedestrians across and along Carlsbad Boulevard.
Open Space, Conservation/Recreation Element
4-G.11: Utilize greenways and trails to connect the City’s open space network.
Local Coastal Program
Guides development in the City’s coastal zone in a manner that protects and enhances coastal resources in
accordance with the policies and provisions outlined in the Coastal Act.
XII.MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the Project: Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
wi
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
In
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
No
Im
p
a
c
t
a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of future value to the region and the residents of the
State?☐☐☐☒
b)Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan, or other land use plan?
☐☐☐☒
PROJECT IMPACTS
a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State?
No Impact: According to the City’s General Plan EIR (page 3.15.1), there are no mineral resources within
the Project area or the City that would have future value to the region and residents of the State. Therefore,
implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of mineral resources of regional value and no
impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b)Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
No Impact: According to the City’s General Plan EIR (page 3.15.1), there are no locally important mineral
resources designated on the City’s General Plan. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result
in the loss of mineral resources of local value and no impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
XIII.NOISE
Would the Project result in: Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
wi
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
In
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a)Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance
or applicable standards of other agencies?
☐☒☐☐
b)Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels?☐☐☒☐
c)For a Project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would theProject expose people residing or working in the Project area to
excessive noise levels?
☐☐☒☐
The following analysis is based on a Noise Study prepared by Birdseye Planning Group in June 2020 and is
presented in Appendix G. The Noise Study evaluated a larger construction project that included the
proposed Project activities along with proposed modifications to the center landscape median on Carlsbad
Boulevard. Because the proposed Project involves less construction activities and associated construction
noise impacts compared to the former proposed project and would not result in greater noise impacts, the
analysis of the Noise Study is adequate to evaluate the proposed Project’s impacts.
BACKGROUND ANALYSIS
Noise level (or volume) is generally measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level
(dBA). The A-weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound pressure levels to be consistent with that
of human hearing response, which is most sensitive to frequencies around 4,000 hertz (about the highest
note on a piano) and less sensitive to low frequencies (below 100 hertz). Sound pressure level is measured
on a logarithmic scale with the 0 dB level based on the lowest detectable sound pressure level that people
can perceive (an audible sound that is not zero sound pressure level). Based on the logarithmic scale, a
doubling of sound energy is equivalent to an increase of three (3) dBA, and a sound that is 10 dBA less than
the ambient sound level has no effect on ambient noise. Because of the nature of the human ear, a sound
must be about 10 dBA greater than the reference sound to be judged as twice as loud. In general, a three
(3)dBA change in community noise levels is noticeable, while a one (1) to two (2) dB change is generally
not perceived. Quiet suburban areas typically have noise levels in the range of 40-50 dBA, while arterial
streets are in the 50-60+ dBA range.
Sound Attenuation
Noise levels typically attenuate (or drop off) at a rate of six (6) dBA per doubling of distance from point
sources (i.e., industrial machinery). Additionally, noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures;
generally, a single row of buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by
about five (5) dBA, while a solid wall or berm reduces noise levels by approximately seven (7) dBA. The
manner in which older homes in California were constructed (approximately 30 years old or older) generally
provides a reduction of exterior-to-interior noise levels of about 20 to 25 dBA with closed windows. The
exterior-to-interior reduction of newer residential units and office buildings constructed to the California
Energy Code standards is generally 30 dBA or more (Harris Miller Miller and Hanson, 2006).
Noise Metrics
One of the most frequently used noise metrics that considers both duration and sound power level is the
equivalent noise level (Leq). The Leq is defined as the single steady A-weighted level that is equivalent to
the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual fluctuating levels over time (essentially, the
average noise level). Typically, Leq is summed over a one (1) hour period. Lmax is the highest RMS (root
mean squared) sound pressure level within the measuring period, and Lmin is the lowest RMS sound
pressure level within the measuring period. Time period in which noise occurs is also important since noise
that occurs at night tends to be more disturbing than that which occurs during the day. Community noise
is usually measured using Day-Night Average Level (Ldn), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a
10 dBA penalty for noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) hours, or Community Noise
Equivalent Level (CNEL), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a five (5) dBA penalty for noise
occurring from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and a 10 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.
Noise levels described by Ldn and CNEL usually do not differ by more than one (1) dB. Daytime Leq levels
are louder than Ldn or CNEL levels; thus, if the Leq meets noise standards, the Ldn and CNEL are also met.
REGULATORY PROGRAMS
Federal
The Federal Noise Control Act (1972) addressed the issue of noise as a threat to human health and welfare.
To implement the Federal Noise Control Act, the USEPA undertook a number of studies related to
community noise in the 1970s. The USEPA found that 24-hour averaged noise levels less than 70 dBA would
avoid measurable hearing loss, levels of less than 55 dBA outdoors and 45 dBA indoors would prevent
activity interference and annoyance (USEPA, 1972). The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) published a Noise Guidebook for use in implementing the Department’s noise policy.
In general, HUD’s goal is exterior noise levels that are less than or equal to 55 dBA Ldn. The goal for interior
noise levels is 45 dBA Ldn.
State
Title 24 of the CCR establishes standards governing interior noise levels that apply to all new single-family
and multi-family residential units in California. These standards require that acoustical studies be
performed before construction at building locations where the existing Ldn exceeds 60 dBA. Such acoustical
studies are required to establish mitigation measures that would limit maximum Ldn levels to 45 dBA in any
habitable room. Although there are no generally applicable interior noise standards pertinent to all uses,
many communities in California have adopted a Ldn of 45 dBa as an upper limit on interior noise in all
residential units.
In addition, the State of California General Plan Guidelines provides guidance for noise compatibility. The
guidelines also present adjustment factors that may be used to arrive at noise acceptability standards that
reflect the noise control goals of the community, the particular community’s sensitivity to noise, and the
community’s assessment of the relative importance of noise pollution.
Local
CITY OF CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE AND NOISE GUIDELINE MANUAL
The City of Carlsbad has established noise guidelines in the Noise Element of the City’s General Plan (City
of Carlsbad, 2015) that are applicable for transportation noise sources. The noise guidelines identify
compatible exterior noise levels for various land use types. Residential land uses are considered normally
acceptable up to 60 dB CNEL. Commercial land uses are considered normally acceptable up to 65 dB CNEL
and conditionally acceptable up to 75 dB.
The City of Carlsbad Municipal Code regulates construction noise by limiting the hours of operation (City of
Carlsbad, 2003). Construction activities are allowed Monday through Friday between the hours of 7:00 AM
to sunset; and on Saturdays from 8:00 AM to sunset, excluding legal holidays. The City does not have
quantitative noise level limits (i.e., based on sound levels) for general nuisance noise such as that associated
with stationary equipment located on private property.
For purposes of this study, construction noise is quantified to evaluate potential noise impacts for CEQA
review purposes. The Project would not generate traffic, nor would the ambient environment change with
construction of the proposed improvements. The residential standard of 60 dB CNEL was used to evaluate
current compliance with existing noise standards. An interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL was used
herein as referenced in the City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual (1995).
Existing Noise Environment
The most common and primary sources of noise in the Project area are motor vehicles (e.g., automobiles,
buses, trucks, and motorcycles) along Carlsbad Boulevard. Motor vehicles can be a concern when it is
characterized by a high number of individual events that can create a sustained noise level in proximity to
noise sensitive uses. Interstate 5 is located approximately 3,400’ to the east. It is inaudible over existing
traffic and the ocean waves breaking on the beach.
The Atichson, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad (AT&SF) rail corridor is located approximately 1,300’ east of
the site. This segment of the Los Angeles – San Diego – San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) corridor is the second
busiest passenger and freight rail corridor in the United States. According to the rail timetables, up to 50
trains (40 passenger and 10 freight trains) use the corridor segment daily between Oceanside and the Santa
Fe Depot in downtown San Diego. The existing rail operations are not audible at the Project site; however,
the warning horns/bells at the Carlsbad Village Drive crossing are audible at the northern end of the Project
area. Train noise contributes negligibly to the ambient noise environment in the study area. McClellan-
Palomar Airport is located approximately 4.0 miles southeast of the site. The site is outside the airport
influence area; however, aircraft operations (airplanes and helicopters) are audible and contribute to
existing noise levels in the Project area. No other noise sources are near the Project site.
The City of Carlsbad General Plan Update Noise Element (2015) provides noise contours associated with
transportation corridors (i.e., roadways, railroad and airport). This provides a graphic illustration of sound
levels near road corridors, but typically does not include effects of landforms and adjacent structures. The
noise contour distances describe worst-case conditions because they do not account for any obstructions
to the noise path, such as walls, berms, or buildings. As noted, railroad bell/horn noise is audible at the
northern end of the Project area when train pass-by events occur. The contours provided in the General
Plan Update Noise Element provide a reasonable prediction of rail noise levels at the site. Noise contours
show the residences located along the east side of Carlsbad Boulevard are within the 60-65 dBA CNEL
contour interval.
To gather data on the general noise environment at the Project site, two (2) weekday 15-minute noise
measurement were acquired at two (2) locations along Carlsbad Boulevard in proximity to the Project site
on June 10, 2020. Site 1 is in the park area at the intersection of Carlsbad Boulevard and Pine Avenue. Site
2 is located on the west side of the Carlsbad Boulevard and Juniper Avenue intersection. The predominant
noise source in the area during monitoring was traffic; however, breaking ocean waves on the beach are
audible and contribute to background levels along the corridor. Aircraft overflights and train pass-by events
did not contribute to ambient conditions during the monitoring period. The monitoring location and
associated noise levels are shown in Table 22, Noise Monitoring Results.
Table 22: Noise Monitoring Results
Measurement Location Primary Noise
Source Sample Time Leq (dBA)
M1. Adjacent to the Project site located at Carlsbad
Boulevard and Pine Avenue (6/10/20) Traffic Weekday
Morning 63.5
M2. Adjacent to Project site located at Carlsbad
Boulevard and Juniper Avenue (6/10/20) Traffic Weekday
Morning 64.1
Note: Field visit using ANSI Type II Integrating sound level meter.
Source: Birdseye Planning Group, Beach Access Repair Project Noise Study, June 2020.
PROJECT IMPACTS
a)Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The site is currently a sidewalk with various public
access features adjacent to and along the west side of Carlsbad Boulevard. As referenced, the proposed
Project would not be expected to generate additional traffic or other noise sources; thus, the impact
discussion focuses on construction noise. The operational noise discussion would address existing
compliance with exterior and interior noise standards for residential/hotel uses. As discussed, existing noise
levels at the monitoring sites exceed 60 dBA.
The primary source of noise during construction activities would be heavy machinery used during
demolition, removal of existing components such as the stair components and installation of the
improvements including concrete and prefabricated stair assemblies. Table 23, Typical Construction
Equipment Noise Levels, shows typical noise levels associated with types of heavy construction equipment
that would be used to construct the proposed Project. As shown in Table 23, the average noise levels
associated with the use of heavy equipment at a construction site can range from 79 to 95 dBA at 25 feet
from the source, depending upon the types of equipment in operation at any given time and phase of
construction (Hanson, Towers, and Meister, May 2006).
Table 23: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment Onsite
Typical Level
(dBA) 25 Feet
from the Source
Typical Level
(dBA) 50 Feet
from the Source
Typical Level
(dBA) 100 Feet
from the Source
Air Compressor 84 78 64
Crane 91 85 79
Backhoe 84 78 64
Bobcat Tractor 84 78 64
Concrete Mixer 85 79 73
Bulldozer 88 82 76
Jack Hammer 95 89 83
Pavement Roller 86 80 74
Excavator 91 85 79
Street Sweeper 88 82 76
Man Lift 81 75 69
Dump Truck 82 76 70
Generator Set 88 82 76
Loader 91 85 79
Welder 79 73 67
Notes:
Equipment Onsite
Typical Level
(dBA) 25 Feet
from the Source
Typical Level
(dBA) 50 Feet
from the Source
Typical Level
(dBA) 100 Feet
from the Source
Noise levels based on FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Handbook Table 9.1, August 2017.
Noise levels based on FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (2006) Users Guide Table 1.
Noise levels based on actual maximum measured noise levels at 50’ (Lmax).
Noise levels assume a noise attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance.
Source: Birdseye Planning Group, Beach Access Repair Project Noise Study, June 2020.
Within the Project area, there are sensitive receptors including residential and hotel uses. Temporary
construction related noise would be audible at these land uses. Table 24, Typical Maximum Construction
Noise Levels at Various Distances from Project Construction, shows typical maximum construction noise
levels at various distances from construction activity, based on a standard noise attenuation rate of six (6)
dBA per doubling of distance. These levels assume use of the noisiest equipment referenced in Table 23
(i.e., crane, excavator, loader) that would be used for extended periods of time. If all three (3) pieces of
equipment were used at the same time in the same location, noise levels at 25 feet could reach 96 dBA and
90 dBA at 50 feet. Based on empirical data obtained from noise studies addressing construction sites, the
worst-case hourly construction noise level was found to be 80.8 dBA Leq at an average distance of 25 feet
(Ldn Consulting, 2016). The daily 12-hour average was measured to be 76 dBA at distance of 25 feet. This
results from periodic rather than constant use of equipment. Assuming a reference level of 76 dBA at 25
feet and a 6 dBA decrease per doubling of distance, the average noise level associated with the Project,
over a 12-hour period would be approximately 70 dBA at 50 feet.
Table 24: Typical Maximum Construction Noise Levels at Various Distances from Project Construction
Distance from Construction Maximum Noise Level at Receptor
(dBA)
25 feet 91
50 feet 85
100 feet 79
250 feet 73
500 feet 66
1,000 feet 60
Source: Birdseye Planning Group, Beach Access Repair Project Noise Study, June 2020.
As shown in Table 24, construction noise levels at residences and hotels along the east side of Carlsbad
Boulevard could be as high as 91 dBA for short intervals and a sustained level of 70 dBA over the course of
a typical day. At beach level (approximately 25 feet from construction activities), noise levels from
demolition equipment (i.e., excavator) could reach a maximum of 91 dBA. Under the City’s Municipal Code
Noise Ordinance, temporary construction noise would be exempt from complying with the City’s noise
standards providing the construction activities would occur Monday through Friday between the hours of
7:00 AM to sunset; and on Saturdays from 8:00 AM to sunset, excluding legal holidays. The construction
activities for the Project are proposed to occur during hours of the day when construction noise would be
allowed. Therefore, temporary construction-related noise impacts would be less than significant.
While no significant construction noise impacts would occur, it is recommended that construction activities
for the Project include the following noise construction BMPs to minimize nuisance noise to the extent
possible:
•Construction Equipment. Electrical power shall be used to run air compressors and similar power
tools where feasible. Internal combustion engines should be equipped with a muffler of a type
recommended by the manufacturer and in good repair. All diesel equipment should be operated
with closed engine doors and should be equipped with factory-recommended mufflers.
Construction equipment that continues to generate substantial noise at the Project boundaries
should be shielded with temporary noise barriers, such as barriers that meet a sound transmission
class (STC) rating of 25, sound absorptive panels, or sound blankets on individual pieces of
construction equipment. Stationary noise-generating equipment, such as generators and
compressors, should be located as far as practically possible from the nearest residential property
lines.
•Neighbor Notification. Provide notification to residential occupants adjacent to the Project site at
least 24 hours prior to initiation of construction activities that could result in substantial noise levels
at outdoor or indoor living areas. This notification should include the anticipated hours and
duration of construction and a description of noise reduction measures being implemented at the
Project site. The notification should include a telephone number for local residents to call to submit
complaints associated with construction noise.
•Noise Control Plan. Construction contractors shall develop and implement a noise control plan that
includes a noise control monitoring program to ensure sustained construction noise levels do not
exceed 75 decibels over a 12-hour period at the nearest sensitive receivers. The plan may include
the following requirements:
−Contractor shall turn off idling equipment while not being used for operations after idling
for five (5) minutes.
−Contractor shall perform noisier operation during the times least sensitive to receptors.
−All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped
with factory-recommended mufflers.
−Electrical power shall be used to run air compressors and similar power tools and to power
any temporary structures, such as construction trailers or security staff facilities, where
practical.
LONG TERM OPERATIONAL NOISE IMPACTS
Exterior Traffic Noise. Traffic is the primary noise source in the Project area. As referenced, traffic noise
currently exceeds the 60 dBA standard for residential properties and other sensitive uses. The Project
would not generate traffic; thus, no impact with respect to exterior traffic noise would occur.
Interior Traffic Noise. As referenced, the Project would not generate traffic or otherwise increase noise
levels post-construction. Existing residences appear to have been constructed using modern techniques
and materials. Assuming the buildings were designed and constructed to meet or exceed California Energy
Code Title 24 standards, the construction methods and materials likely result in a 25 to 30 dBA reduction
in exterior noise levels (assuming windows are closed). When windows are open, the insertion loss drops
to about 10 dBA. Assuming windows are closed, interior noise levels associated with traffic operations
would be reduced from 64.1 (baseline) to 34.1 dBA. Thus, while existing exterior noise levels exceed the
60-dBA standard, the 45-dBA interior standard would be met.
Mitigation Measures:
NOI-1: It is recommended that construction activities for the Project include the following noise
construction BMPs to minimize nuisance noise to the extent possible:
•Construction Equipment. Electrical power shall be used to run air compressors and similar
power tools where feasible. Internal combustion engines should be equipped with a
muffler of a type recommended by the manufacturer and in good repair. All diesel
equipment should be operated with closed engine doors and should be equipped with
factory-recommended mufflers. Construction equipment that continues to generate
substantial noise at the Project boundaries should be shielded with temporary noise
barriers, such as barriers that meet an STC rating of 25, sound absorptive panels, or sound
blankets on individual pieces of construction equipment. Stationary noise-generating
equipment, such as generators and compressors, should be located as far as practically
possible from the nearest residential property lines.
•Neighbor Notification. Provide notification to residential occupants adjacent to the
Project site at least 24 hours prior to initiation of construction activities that could result
in substantial noise levels at outdoor or indoor living areas. This notification should
include the anticipated hours and duration of construction and a description of noise
reduction measures being implemented at the Project site. The notification should
include a telephone number for local residents to call to submit complaints associated
with construction noise.
•Noise Control Plan. Construction contractors shall develop and implement a noise control
plan that includes a noise control monitoring program to ensure sustained construction
noise levels do not exceed 75 decibels over a 12-hour period at the nearest sensitive
receivers. The plan may include the following requirements:
−Contractor shall turn off idling equipment while not being used for operations after
idling for five (5) minutes.
−Contractor shall perform noisier operation during the times least sensitive to
receptors.
−All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be
equipped with factory-recommended mufflers.
−Electrical power shall be used to run air compressors and similar power tools and to
power any temporary structures, such as construction trailers or security staff
facilities, where practical.
b)Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less than Significant Impact: Vibration is a unique form of noise as the energy is transmitted through
buildings, structures, and the ground whereas audible noise energy is transmitted through the air. Thus,
vibration is generally felt rather than heard. The ground motion caused by vibration is measured as particle
velocity in inches per second (PPV inches/second) and referenced as vibration decibels (VdB). The vibration
velocity level threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB (PPV 0.04 inches/second). A
vibration velocity of 75 VdB (PPV 0.25 inches/second) is the approximate dividing line between barely
perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels.
City policies do not address construction-related vibration. The Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA’s)
Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018) and California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans), Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (September 2013)
use the same thresholds but different descriptors for the purpose of determining vibration impacts. FTA
uses VdB while Caltrans uses PPV. A threshold of 65 VdB (PPV 0.04) is used for buildings where low ambient
vibration is essential for interior operations. These buildings include hospitals and recording studios. A
threshold of 72 VdB (PPV 0.25) is used for residences and buildings where people normally sleep (i.e., hotels
and rest homes); thus, this is the threshold used for the purpose of determining vibration impacts
associated with construction of the proposed Project.
Construction activities such as blasting, pile driving, demolition, excavation or drilling have the potential to
generate ground vibrations near structures. With respect to ground-borne vibration impacts on structures,
the FTA states that ground-borne vibration levels excess of 100 VdB would damage fragile buildings and
levels in excess of 95 VdB would damage extremely fragile historic buildings. No historic buildings are known
to occur near the site; thus, 100 VdB was used to quantify potential vibration impacts to neighboring
structures. Construction activities referenced above that would generate significant vibration levels are not
proposed. However, to provide information for use in completing the CEQA evaluation, construction-
related vibration impacts were evaluated using the above referenced criteria.
PROJECT IMPACT
Use of the proposed improvements would not generate vibration. Thus, this discussion focuses on
temporary vibration impacts caused by construction. The highest vibration levels are typically associated
with large-scale grading, excavation, and impact construction methods such as pile driving. Construction of
the proposed improvements would not require this level of ground disturbance or otherwise require impact
construction methods. Based on the information presented in Table 25, Vibration Source Levels for
Construction Equipment, the highest vibration levels could reach 86 VdB while loaded trucks used to
remove demolition debris or deliver heavy components that are operating in the area. The nearest sensitive
properties are located approximately 70’ east of the construction area across Carlsbad Boulevard, a four
(4)lane roadway. Vibration levels would attenuate to 76 dBA at 75’, the approximate distance to the
nearest sensitive properties.
Table 25: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment Approximate VdB
25 Feet 50 Feet 60 Feet 75 Feet 100 Feet
Large Bulldozer 87 81 79 77 75
Loaded Trucks 86 80 78 76 74
Jackhammer 79 73 71 69 67
Small Bulldozer 58 52 50 48 46
Source: Birdseye Planning Group, Beach Access Repair Project Noise Study, June 2020.
As discussed, 100 VdB is the threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings. Vibration levels
are Projected to be under this threshold; thus, structural damage would not be expected to occur from
construction activities associated with the proposed Project. While vibration levels at residential buildings
adjacent to the Project site could exceed the groundborne velocity threshold level of 72 VdB for residences
and/or buildings where people sleep as discussed above, it is unlikely that vibration associated with truck
operation would be perceptible over existing traffic volumes on Carlsbad Boulevard. The construction
vibration occurs during the hours of the day when construction noise would be exempt under the City
Municipal Code Noise Ordinance. Additionally, implementation of the noise construction BMPs would
reduce vibration impacts. Temporary vibration impacts would be considered adverse but would be less
than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
c)For a Project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?
Less than Significant Impact: The closest airport to the Project area would be McClellan-Palomar Airport,
approximately 3.6 miles from the Project area. The City’s General Plan Noise Element identifies that
acceptable outdoor noise level for parks and recreation uses is 65 CNEL. As shown in Figure 18, Airport
Noise Compatibility, the Project area would be well outside of the 65 CNEL contour and would not be
exposed to excessive noise impacts.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
BEACH ACCESS REPAIR PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 18
Airport Noise Compa����
Source: City of Carlsbad General Plan, Noise Element; September 2015.
XIV.POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the Project: Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
wi
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
In
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
No
Im
p
a
c
t
a)Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
☐☐☐☒
b)Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?☐☐☐☒
PROJECT IMPACTS
a)Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or
other infrastructure)?
No Impact: The City of Carlsbad is a coastal city in the North County region of San Diego County. The City
is 87 miles south of downtown Los Angeles and 35 miles north of downtown San Diego and is part of the
San Diego-Carlsbad, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area. The population and housing data for the City of
Carlsbad and County of San Diego are shown in Table 26, Socioeconomic Data.
Table 26: Socioeconomic Data
Data City of Carlsbad County of San Diego
Total Population 115,382 3,338,330
Total Households 43,293 1,118,980
Household Size 2.61 2.87
Household Income $107,172 $74,855
Source: Southern California Association of Governments 2019 Local Community Report.
The proposed Project involves improvements to existing pedestrian sidewalk and coastal access
improvements. The improvements would not increase the existing population levels or estimated
population levels within the Project area. The Project would not extend infrastructure into any undeveloped
areas that would facilitate growth beyond the level of growth Projected in the City of Carlsbad General
Plan. The proposed improvements would help support the recreational needs of the City’s population. The
Project would not generate any permanent employment opportunities that would generate additional
housing demands. The construction of the proposed Project would generate short-term construction
employment opportunities within the Project area that would most likely be filled from the local area and
would not generate the need for new housing, public services, or commercial commerce. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed Project would not induce substantial unplanned growth in the Project and
no adverse population impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b)Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact: Implementation of the proposed Project would not involve any full, partial, or temporary
property acquisitions that would involve residential properties that would require the need for replacement
BEACH ACCESS REPAIR PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 19
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
Source: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE); July 2020.
XV.PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered government
facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public services: Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
w
i
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
I
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
No
Im
p
a
c
t
a)Fire protection?☐☐☒☐
b)Police protection?☐☐☒☐
c)Schools?☐☐☐☒
d)Parks?☐☐☒☐
e)Other public facilities?☐☐☐☒
PROJECT IMPACTS
a)Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental 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:
1)Fire protection?
Less than Significant Impact: The City of Carlsbad Fire Department is an all-risk, all-threat first
responder agency safeguarding lives, property, and the environment through 24-hour fire, rescue,
and emergency medical services. The Fire Department is divided into three (3) sections: fire
operations, fire prevention, and emergency preparedness. The City of Carlsbad has seven (7) fire
stations strategically placed throughout the City to protect residents and businesses. The City also
maintains a fleet of vehicles that respond to emergency incidents. In addition to front-line
apparatuses, the City has reserve apparatuses that can immediately be placed in service when
additional staffing is needed or when front-line apparatuses experience mechanical issues. The
City’s new temporary Fire Station 7 is the closest fire station to the Project area, located at 4600
Carlsbad Boulevard, approximately 0.75 miles from the Project area. The next closest fire station
to the Project area would be Fire Station 1, which is located at 1275 Carlsbad Village Drive,
approximately one (1) mile from the Project area. Fire Department response areas are based on
real-time apparatus location measurements determined by GPS in conjunction with automatic
vehicle locaters. The performance standard established by the Citywide Facilities and
Improvements Plan requires that no more than 1,500 dwelling units be located outside of a five (5)
minute response time. In its annual State of Effectiveness Report, the City uses response time
benchmarks of six (6) minutes for the first unit on scene and nine (9) minutes for the second.
According to the 2019 State of Effectiveness Report, the Fire Department achieved the benchmark
in 63 percent of cases for the first unit on scene of six (6) minutes.
The determination of fire capacity to accommodate potential increased service demands would be
based on information regarding facility needs, planning assessments and geographic data.
Additional demands for fire protection services already located within service areas would be
subject to similar response times and service standards as existing development in those areas.
The proposed sidewalk and coastal access improvements would not substantially increase the need
for fire protection services above the current demand that would require addition staffing or
construction of new facilities. During construction, there could be the potential that existing travel
lanes could be temporary reduced along Carlsbad Boulevard, which could affect response times
within the Project area. The temporary closures would be for a short period of time and would be
implemented in accordance with recommendations provided in the California Temporary Traffic
Control handbook to ensure that emergency access would be maintained all times. Potential
effects on fire service protection services would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b)Police protection?
Less than Significant Impact: The City of Carlsbad Police Department provides police protection
within the City. The Carlsbad Police Department conducts its police protection services primarily
out of the Carlsbad Public Safety and Service Center, a 53,600-square-foot facility located at 2650
Orion Way. The patrol division is the core of the Police Department’s law enforcement services,
responding to more than 90,000 calls for service annually. Although street patrols are the majority
of the division’s activity, other special services include canine units, bicycle patrol, crisis
negotiations, bilingual services, tactical response team (SWAT, Special Weapons and Tactics), and
mental health assistance teams. The Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan does not specify a
standard for police services. The proposed sidewalk and coastal access improvements would not
substantially increase the need for police protection services above the current demand that would
require additional staffing or construction of new facilities. During construction, there could be the
potential that existing travel lanes could be temporarily reduced along Carlsbad Boulevard, which
could affect response times within the Project area. The temporary closures would be for a short
period of time and would be implemented in accordance with recommendations provided in the
California Temporary Traffic Control handbook to ensure that emergency access would be
maintained at all times. Potential effects on police protection services would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
c)Schools?
No Impact: The City of Carlsbad is served by four (4) school districts: Carlsbad Unified School
District (CUSD), San Marcos Unified School District, Encinitas Union Elementary School District, and
San Dieguito Union High School District. Most of Carlsbad (about 62 percent of residential land—
4,187 of 6,797 acres) is served by CUSD, which comprises nine (9) elementary schools that feed
into three (3) middle schools and two (2) high schools and accommodates more than 10,000
students. The proposed Project would not directly result in any student generation, as no homes
or other growth inducing uses are proposed. Implementation of the proposed Project would not
result in the need for the construction of additional school facilities. The closest school site to the
Project area would be Jefferson Elementary School, which is located at 3743 Jefferson Street, and
La Palma High School, which is located at 728 Chestnut Avenue. Both school sites are located
approximately 0.50 miles from the study and are not directly accessed by Carlsbad Boulevard.
Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would not have any effect on access
to either school site. Therefore, no impacts to school services would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
d)Parks?
Less than Significant Impact: The City of Carlsbad park facility standard is three (3) acres of
community parks or special use areas per 1,000 population within the park district. There are four
(4)park districts within Carlsbad which correspond to the City’s four (4) quadrants. Carlsbad
maintains three (3) park categories, as described below:
•Community Parks: In Carlsbad, community parks are approximately 20-50 acres in size
(though there are several smaller parks “grandfathered” into this classification) and are
designed to serve the recreational needs of several neighborhoods.
•Special Use Areas: Special use areas are typically between one (1) and five (5) acres in size,
with only one (1) or two (2) basic uses, which can be either active or passive in orientation.
•Special Resource Areas: Special resource areas have citywide and potentially regional
significance related to the quality of the site or service that it provides. This quality may be
a natural feature (geological, ecological, hydrological), historical (architectural,
archaeological), or some combination thereof.
Carlsbad currently has 13 community parks (255.5 acres), 25 special use areas (68.5 acres), and five
(5)special resource areas (more than 1,300 acres). The closest park sites to the Project area would
be Magee Park located at 258 Beech Avenue, Maxton Park located at 500 Laguna Drive, and Pine
Avenue Park located at 755 Chestnut Avenue. Additionally, within the Project area is the Frazee
Tamarack State Beach Bluff Special Use Area. The City of Carlsbad provides beach access at Pine,
Sycamore, Maple, Cherry, Hemlock, and Tamarack Avenues. Two (2) seawalls and a pedestrian
walkway connect Pine Avenue to Cannon Road. The seawall south of Tamarack Avenue provides
additional beach accessways and provides a pedestrian connection along this entire stretch of
beach.
The proposed Project would expand the existing pedestrian sidewalk along Frazee Tamarack State
Beach Bluff Special Use Area and would not generate the need for new park services. Moreover,
the Project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth in the Project
area, which could generate needs for additional park services. Both Maxton Park and Pine Avenue
Park are located well outside of the Project area and would not be affected by construction
activities associated with the Project. During construction of the Project, portions of the Frazee
Tamarack State Beach Bluff Special Use Area and coastal access ways to Carlsbad State Beach would
be temporarily closed. The Project would be constructed in two (2) main phases to avoid the busy
summer months between Memorial Day and Labor Day. Phased construction would allow one (1)
southbound travel lane for traffic to remain open during the upper sidewalk widening
improvements. During construction, the southbound bike lane along Carlsbad Boulevard, from Pine
Avenue to Maple Avenue, would need to be temporarily closed and bike traffic would be rerouted.
The proposed construction phasing along with implementation of traffic and pedestrian controls
would ensure safe public access during construction. There would no adverse impact on the
existing carry capacities of parks in the City that would require a need to construct new park
facilities. Potential impacts on parks would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
e)Other public facilities?
No Impact: The City of Carlsbad has three (3) library facilities: Dove Library, Georgina Cole Library,
and the Carlsbad City Library Learning Center. The City has established a performance standard for
library space equal to 800 square feet per 1,000 population. The proposed Project would expand
the existing pedestrian sidewalk along Frazee Tamarack State Beach Bluff Special Use Area and
would increase coastal access to Carlsbad State Beach. The Project would not generate the need
for new library services. Moreover, the Project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial
population growth in the Project area, which could generate needs for additional library services.
Additionally, there are no existing library facilities within the Project area that would be impacted
by construction operations associated with the Project. Therefore, no impacts to library facilities
or other public facilities would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
XVI.RECREATION
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
an
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
wi
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
In
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a)Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?☐☐☒☐
b)Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?☐☐☒☐
PROJECT IMPACTS
a)Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
Less than Significant Impact: The Project would increase the size of the pedestrian sidewalk along the
coastal bluffs and enhance coastal access to Carlsbad State Beach, which would increase recreational
opportunities for the public. During construction, some coastal accessways would temporarily be closed,
which would require pedestrians to use other existing alternate accessways that are open. The use of the
existing alternate accessways would be temporary and would not accelerate substantial physical
deterioration. The proposed improvements would increase the longevity and recreational use of the
pedestrian trails and coastal accessways within the Project area. Potential impacts on the use of existing
recreational facilities would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b)Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact: The proposed Project involves improvements to existing pedestrian sidewalk
and existing coastal accessways to Carlsbad State Beach. These improvements would enhance recreational
uses within the Project area. Potential impacts associated with these recreational enhancement
improvements have been evaluated in this Initial Study and have been determined to be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
XVII. TRANSPORTATION
Would the Project: Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
wi
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
In
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a)Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
☐☐☐☒
b)Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines 15064.3,subdivision?☐☐☐☒
c)Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
☐☒☐☐
d)Result in inadequate emergency access?☐☒☐☐
PROJECT IMPACTS
a)Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
No Impact: Pursuant to SB 743 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b), VMT is the program
for measuring and addressing vehicular circulation system facilities under CEQA. Analysis of Level of Service
(LOS) as provided in a Project Transportation Impact Study (TIS) is no longer the metric for determining
transportation environmental impacts. City of Carlsbad’s VMT Guidelines, which were adopted recently
(October 2022), evaluate transportation impacts as they relate to the core values outlined in the City’s
General Plan. These core values include: (1) walking, biking, public transportation, and
connectivity/mobility; (2) sustainability; and (3) neighborhood revitalization, community design, and
livability. VMT is often measured using various travel demand modeling tools, trip generation surveys or
trip generation rate data published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. However, the proposed
Project is exempt from a VMT Analysis as it meets the exemption criteria outlined in the VMT Guidelines.
VMT is addressed in subsection b below.
The General Plan Mobility Element (item [1] listed above) promotes a livable streets strategy for mobility
within the City. The objective of the strategy is to create a ‘multi-modal’ street network that balances the
mobility needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and vehicles. For each street in the City, the General
Plan Mobility Element identifies the travel modes for which service levels should be maintained per the
multi-modal level of service (MMLOS) standard. However, as per the recent VMT Guidelines, LOS is no
longer the metric used to evaluate traffic impacts as VMT is the current program. Within the Project area,
the Mobility Element identifies Carlsbad Boulevard as an Identify Street. According to the Mobility Element,
Identify Streets are designed to safely move all modes of travel while enhancing mobility for vehicles,
pedestrians, bicycles, and transit facilities.
Implementation of the proposed Project would not generate additional traffic trips or increase VMT in the
Project area. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative traffic impacts or
conflict with the Mobility Element. Prior to the start of construction, a Traffic Control Management Plan
would be prepared and implemented to maintain safe vehicular and pedestrian access within the Project
area.
The proposed Project would increase the width of the existing pedestrian sidewalk along Carlsbad
Boulevard between Pine Avenue and Tamarack Avenue, which would enhance pedestrian access. The
existing on street bike lane would continue to provide bicycle access along Carlsbad Avenue. Therefore, the
proposed Project would not reduce or impede any pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facility and no conflicts
with the Mobility Plan would occur.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b)Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines 15064.3, subdivision?
No Impact: The Project was evaluated based on the City of Carlsbad’s VMT Analysis Guidelines and does
not meet any of the criteria to conduct a detailed VMT Analysis. According to the City’s Guidelines, there
are several screening criteria that are exempt from VMT Analysis including projects located near transit
(Section 3.3.2), local-serving public facilities (Section 3.3.4), affordable housing projects (Section3.3.5), and
redevelopment projects that result in a net reduction of VMT (Section 3.3.6). The proposed Project is
exempt from a VMT Analysis as it is considered a local-serving public facility, which will expand public
walkability and promote safe beach access along Carlsbad Boulevard and Carlsbad State Beach Park.
Furthermore, the Project will not construct new facilities or generate additional traffic trips and no
expansion or loss vehicular transportation corridors will occur. Therefore, the proposed Project would not
contribute considerably to significant cumulative traffic impacts and would have less than a significant
impact related to VMT.
Mitigation Measure: No mitigation measures are required.
c)Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: All Project circulation improvements would be
designed and constructed to City standards and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. Therefore,
it would not increase long-term hazards due to an incompatible use. The construction activities for the
proposed Project could require temporary lane closure along Carlsbad Boulevard and along segments of
the pedestrian sidewalk. Additionally, the construction activities would require the mobilization and
demobilization of construction equipment and the operation of heavy construction equipment within the
study area. To avoid conflicts with motorist and pedestrians when construction activities are occurring, a
Traffic Control Management Plan would be prepared and implemented, which could include a combination
traffic control measures such as a signage and flagman to direct equipment into and out of the work area
and to guide pedestrians safely away from the work area. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure
T-1, potential traffic hazards associated with proposed construction activities would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure T-1 is required.
T-1:Prior to the start of construction activities, a Traffic Control Management Plan will be prepared
and implemented.
d)Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: During construction, there could be temporary lane
closures and traffic detouring which could affect emergency access within the Project area. The Project
construction activities would be coordinated with the Fire and Police Departments to ensure emergency
requirements have been satisfied. As part of the proposed Project, a Traffic Control Management Plan
would be prepared and implemented to ensure adequate emergency access would be maintained at all
times. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure T-1, potential emergency access impacts would be
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure T-1 is required.
XVIII.TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape
that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, and that is: Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
w
i
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
I
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
I
m
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a)Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
☐☐☒☐
b)A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
☐☒☐☐
BACKGROUND ANALYSIS
A Phase I cultural resource survey of the Project area was completed as well as a California Historic
Resources Information Systems (CHRIS) records search (See Appendix D – Cultural Resources Assessment).
The CHRIS records search noted that one (1) cultural resource has been recorded within the buffer of the
Project area; however, it consists of two (2) historical era bricks that lie outside the disturbance area and
will not be impacted by the Project. No cultural resources were noted as a result of the survey. Results from
the Phase I survey demonstrate that no known tribal cultural resources or recorded historical resources are
present on the Project site; however, to avoid potential significant impacts to cultural resources, a qualified
archaeological monitor and a qualified Native American/cultural monitor will be present on site during all
ground disturbing activities. In the event that potential archaeological resources are discovered during
ground-disturbing activities, the qualified archaeologist on site will notify the Associate State Archaeologist
and City of Carlsbad immediately and all work shall stop and/or be diverted in that area and within 30’ of
the find until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop
appropriate treatment measures.
To avoid significant impacts to unknown tribal cultural resources that could be present on the Project site,
the proposed Project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure CR-2, which requires that
construction activities halt in the event tribal cultural resources are encountered.
In the event unknown burial remains are encountered during construction, the Project would be required
to comply with Mitigation Measure CR-3, which requires grading and construction activities to cease
pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 until the County Coroner has made the necessary
findings as to the origin and disposition pursuant to Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resource Code.
California Assembly Bill 52 (AB52) established a formal consultation process for California tribes within the
CEQA process. AB52 specifies that any Project may affect or cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource that would require a lead agency to “begin consultation with a
California Native American tribe that is traditional and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the
proposed Project.” Section 21074 of AB52 also defines a new category of resources under CEQA called
“tribal cultural resources.” Tribal cultural resources are defined as “sites, features, places, cultural
landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and is
either listed on or eligible for the CRHR or a local historic register, or if the lead agency chooses to treat the
resource as a tribal cultural resource.
The City initiated the tribal consultant process for the purposes of AB52 for the proposed Project on April
7, 2021. Those tribes that have requested to be listed on the City’s notification list for the purposes of AB52
were notified in writing via certified mail. As part of this process, the City has provided notification to each
of these listed tribes the opportunity to consult with the City regarding the proposed Project. The following
individuals/tribes were sent email letters:
1.San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians
2.Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians
3.La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians
4.Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
The Rincon Band of Luiseno and San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians tribes responded within 30 days and
requested consultation. A finalized version of the Project was presented to the Rincon Band of Luiseno
Indians on February 01, 2023. Since this meeting, multiple correspondence has occurred; however, the City
did not receive a letter from Rincon formally acknowledging the end of consultation. The final version of
the Project was also presented to the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians on April 11, 2023. In this
meeting, San Luis Rey requested to review a copy of the land file search from the Native American Heritage
Commission. City staff supplied that information on April 12, 2023. The mitigation measures were emailed
once more to both San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians and Rincon Band of Luiseno on May 5, 2023. AB
52 consultation with the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians and the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians
concluded on May 16, 2023.
PROJECT IMPACTS
a)Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register
of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k).
Less than Significant Impact: The proposed Project is not listed nor eligible for listing in the CRHR or in a
local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resource Code Section 5020.1(k).
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b)A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a CaliforniaNative American tribe.
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The Sacred Lands File search completed by the NAHC
returned a positive result. The NAHC requested that contact be made with the La Jolla Band of Luiseño
Indians and the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians regarding the result. Additionally, the City’s Planning
Division notified the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, the La Jolla Band
of Luiseno Indians, and the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians as part of the City’s AB52 Consultation,
which are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the California Native American tribes that have
requested notice of proposed Projects Therefore, mitigation measures TRC-1 and TRC-2 are incorporated
to reduce this impact to a level less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
TCR-1: Tribal Cultural Resources Monitoring
Prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing activities, the project developer shall:
a.Retain the services of a qualified archaeologist who shall be on-site for ground-disturbing activities.
In the event cultural material is encountered, the archaeologist is empowered to temporarily divert
or halt grading to allow for coordination with the Luiseño Native American monitor, or other
Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated Luiseño tribe (“TCA Tribe”), and to determine the significance
of the discovery. The archaeologist shall follow all standard procedures for cultural materials that
are not tribal cultural resources.
b.Enter into a Pre-Excavation Agreement, otherwise known as a Tribal Cultural Resources Treatment
and Tribal Monitoring Agreement, with a TCA affiliated consulting tribe the San Luis Rey Band of
Mission Indians or other Luiseño tribe that meets all standard requirements of the tribe for such
agreements. This Agreement will address provision of a Luiseño Native American monitor and
contain provisions to address the proper treatment of any tribal cultural resources and/or Luiseño
Native American human remains inadvertently discovered during the course of the project. The
Agreement will outline the roles and powers of the Luiseño Native American monitors and the
archaeologist and may include the following provisions. In some cases, the language below may be
modified in consultation with San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians if special conditions warrant.
c.A Luiseño Native American monitor shall be present during all ground-disturbing activities. Ground
disturbing activities may include, but are not limited to archaeological studies, geotechnical
investigations, clearing, grubbing, trenching, excavation, preparation for utilities and other
infrastructure, and grading activities.
d.Any and all uncovered artifacts of Luiseño Native American cultural importance shall be returned
to the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, and/or the Most Likely Descendant for later reburial
on project site, if applicable, and not be curated, unless ordered to do so by a federal agency or a
court of competent jurisdiction. Any and all uncovered artifacts of Luiseño Native American cultural
importance shall be returned to the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, and/or the Most Likely
Descendant, if applicable, and not be curated, unless ordered to do so by a federal agency or a
court of competent jurisdiction.
e.The Luiseño Native American monitor shall be present at the Project’s pre-construction meeting to
consult with grading and excavation contractors concerning excavation schedules and safety
issues, as well as to consult with the archaeologist PI (principal investigator) concerning the
proposed archaeologist techniques and/or strategies for the Project.
f.Luiseño Native American monitors and archaeological monitors shall have joint authority to
temporarily divert and/or halt construction activities. If tribal cultural resources are discovered
during construction, all earth-moving activity within and around the immediate discovery area
must be diverted until the Luiseño Native American monitor and the archaeologist can assess the
nature and significance of the find.
g.If a significant tribal cultural resource(s) and/or unique archaeological resource(s) are discovered
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 tribal cultural resources. If, however, the Applicant
is able to demonstrate that avoidance of a significant and/or unique cultural resource 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. If a significant tribal cultural resource(s) and/or unique archaeological resource(s)
are discovered during ground-disturbing activities for this project, the San Luis Rey Band of Mission
Indians or other Luiseño tribe shall be notified and consulted regarding the respectful and dignified
treatment of those resources. Pursuant to California Public Resource Code Section 21083.2(b)
avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological and tribal cultural resources.
If, however, the Applicant is able to demonstrate that avoidance of a significant and/or unique
cultural resource 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.
h.When tribal cultural resources are discovered during the project, if the archaeologist collects
such resources, a Luiseño Native American monitor must be present during any testing or
cataloging of those resources. If the archaeologist does not collect the tribal cultural resources
that are unearthed during the ground-disturbing activities, the Luiseño Native American monitor
may, at their discretion, collect said resources and provide them to the San Luis Rey Band of
Mission Indians for dignified and respectful treatment in accordance with their cultural and
spiritual traditions.
i.If suspected Native American human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5(b) states that no further disturbance shall occur until the San Diego County Medical
Examiner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Public
Resource Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a
final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. Suspected Native American
remains shall be examined in the field and kept in a secure location at the site. A Luiseño Native
American monitor shall be present during the examination of the remains. If the San Diego County
Medical Examiner determines the remains to be Native American, the NAHC must be contacted by
the Medical Examiner within 24 hours. The NAHC must then immediately notify the “Most Likely
Descendant” about 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
Resource Code 5097.98.
j.In the event that fill material is imported into the project area, the fill shall be clean of tribal cultural
resources and documented as such. Commercial sources of fill material are already permitted as
appropriate and will be culturally sterile. If fill material is to be utilized and/or exported from areas
within the project site, then that fill material shall be analyzed and confirmed by an archaeologist
and Luiseño Native American monitor that such fill material does not contain tribal cultural
resources.
k.No testing, invasive or non-invasive, shall be permitted on any recovered tribal cultural resources
without the written permission of the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians. No testing, invasive or
non-invasive, shall be permitted on any recovered tribal cultural resources without the written
permission of the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians or any other Luiseño Native American
consulting tribe.
TCR-2: Tribal Cultural Resources Monitoring and/or Evaluation Report
Prior to the completion of project construction, a monitoring report and/or evaluation report, if
appropriate, which describes the results, analysis, and conclusions of the monitoring program shall be
submitted by the Project Archaeologist, along with the Luiseño Native American monitor’s notes and
comments, to the City of Carlsbad for approval, and shall be submitted to the South Coastal Information
Center. Said report shall be subject to confidentiality as an exception to the Public Records Act and will not
be available for public distribution.
XIX.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the Project: Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
wi
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
In
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a)Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which would cause significant
environmental effects?
☐☐☐☒
b)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and
reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?☐☐☒☐
c)Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity
to serve the Project’s Projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
☐☐☒☐
d)Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?☐☐☒☐
e)Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to solid waste?☐☐☐☒
PROJECT IMPACTS
a)Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, or wastewater
treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
No Impact: Implementation of the proposed Project would not increase the demand for utility service
systems and, therefore, would not require the expansion of existing utility systems or the construction of
new utility systems. The proposed improvements would include adding low-level lighting under the
elevated platform railing at each of the five (5) stairway locations. The additional lighting would tie into
existing electrical utilities and would not result in any additional impacts outside of the footprint of the
elevated platforms. Furthermore, there will be no relocation of utilities within or adjacent to the Project
area and as such, impacts to existing utilities are not anticipated. As needed, utility service providers would
be coordinated on the design and installation and would ensure that adverse impacts to the environment
are avoided.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
Less than Significant Impact: The City of Carlsbad receives water service from three (3) water districts:
Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD), Olivenhain Municipal Water District, and Vallecitos Water
District. The Project area is in the CMWD service area, which is the largest of the three (3) water districts.
CMWD’s service area is located in northern San Diego County, encompassing approximately 32 square
miles. CMWD’s 2015 water supplies included purchased water and recycled water. Potable water demands
are all currently met with water purchased from the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA), while
recycled water is used for non-potable uses to offset potable water use. SDCWA is the regional wholesale
water agency in San Diego County, and serves 24 member agencies, including CMWD. SDCWA’s supply mix
includes Colorado River water, State Water Project (SWP) water, and desalinated seawater.
Preparation of an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) is required by the California Department of
Water Resources (DWR) for all urban water suppliers within the State of California, which includes CMWD.
The UWMP identifies long-term resource planning to ensure that adequate water supplies are available to
meet existing and future water needs. The UWMP includes a water supply and demand assessment that
compares the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with the long-term total projected
water use over the next 20 years, in five (5) year increments for a normal water year, a single dry water
year, and a drought lasting multiple consecutive water years. The water service reliability assessment is
based on regional and local planning programs that provide population projections within the service area
of the urban water supplier. The most recent UWMP for CMWD was prepared in 2015. Below, is a
comparison between the supply and demand within the CMWD service area for projected years between
2020 and 2040 under a normal water year, single dry year, and multiple dry year; refer to Table 27, Normal
Year Demand Comparison, Table 28, Single Dry Year Demand Comparison, and Table 29, Multiple Dry Years
Demand Comparison.
Table 27: Normal Year Demand Comparison
Unit 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Supply Totals 28,526 29,696 29,984 30,450 30,474
Demand Totals 23,085 24,255 25,543 24,822 24,846
Difference +5,441 +5,441 +4,441 +5,628 +5,628
Source: Carlsbad Municipal Water District, Urban Water Management Plan; Adopted 2016.
Table 28: Single Dry Year Demand Comparison
Unit 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Supply Totals 29,750 31,000 31,308 31,793 31,818
Demand Totals 24,655 25,904 26,212 26,510 26,536
Difference +5,095 +5,096 +5,096 +5,283 +5,282
Source: Carlsbad Municipal Water District, Urban Water Management Plan; Adopted 2016.
Table 29: Multiple Dry Years Demand Comparison
Unit 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
First Year
Supply Totals 29,678 30,923 31,230 31,714 31,739
Demand Totals 24,562 25,807 26,114 26,411 26,436
Difference +5,116 +5,116 +5,116 +5,303 +5,303
Second Year
Supply Totals 30,543 31,844 32,164 32,661 32,688
Demand Totals 25,671 26,972 27,292 27,602 27,629
Difference +4,872 +4,872 +4,872 +5,059 +5,059
Third Year
Supply Totals 31,443 32,803 33,137 32,831 31,834
Demand Totals 26,825 28,184 28,519 28,843 28,871
Difference +4,618 +4,619 +4,618 +3,988 +2,963
Source: Carlsbad Municipal Water District, Urban Water Management Plan; Adopted 2016.
As shown in the above tables, the CMWD would have adequate water supplies for land uses within its
service area under a normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry years. As indicated previously, the
projected water demand projects are based on approved land use plans and associated population
projections. Implementation of the proposed Project would not increase water demands above the current
level of demand or result in any changes to approved land uses that effect long-term water projections and
associated water demands. As shown above, the CMWD would have ability to provide adequate water
service during normal, dry, and multiple dry years and potential impacts in regard to water supplies would
be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
c)Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the
Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s Projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
Less than Significant Impact: The City of Carlsbad receives wastewater service from three (3) water
districts: CMWD, Olivenhain Municipal Water District, and Vallecitos Water District. The CMWD services
approximately 82 percent of the City. Carlsbad’s Sewer Service Area extends from the Pacific Coast
approximately four (4) to five (5) miles inland, providing wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal
service. Sewer flows are conveyed in six (6) interceptors to the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility
(EWPCF), which is along the coast and approximately centered north–south in the service area. Five (5) lift
stations are part of the interceptor system, and 11 smaller lift stations are required in the collection system
to convey wastewater flows to the EWPCF. Wastewater generated within the Carlsbad sewer service area
is treated at the EWPCF. The EWPCF provides full secondary treatment, sludge handling, and disposal
through a deep ocean outfall. The treatment levels meet current state and federal requirements for
secondary treatment. The current treatment capacity at the EWPCF is 40.51 mgd. Carlsbad’s current
ownership capacity for treatment at the EWPCF is 9.24 mgd (average flow). The 2012 Sewer Master Plan
Projected future 2035 wastewater flows to be approximately 10.0 mgd, based on growth estimates prior
to the proposed General Plan. The City has requested an additional 1.02 mgd for a total of 10.26 mgd,
which is currently pending.
The City of Carlsbad currently owns, operates, and maintains approximately 264 miles of wastewater
collection pipelines, including interceptors, gravity flow collector pipelines, and inverted siphons. The
collector sewer system includes approximately 6,300 manholes. The gravity pipelines range in size from 6”
to 27” in diameter and up to 60” in diameter when including interceptor sewer pipelines. Pipe materials
used throughout the gravity sewer system consist of predominately vitrified clay pipe (VCP) and
polyvinylchloride (PVC), but other materials have also been used throughout the years. VCP was
predominately installed in the City prior to 1980, with approximately three (3) percent of the City’s gravity
sewers having been installed prior to 1950. A portion of the City’s sewers were installed as far back as 1929,
in the “Village” area north of Carlsbad Village Drive in the proximity of State Street. Fortunately, much of
the City’s growth did not occur until the mid-1980s. Approximately 50 percent of the City’s gravity sewer
system has been installed in the past 25 years. According to the City’s 2012 Sewer Master Plan, wastewater
flows generated within Carlsbad are projected to increase by approximately 27 percent over existing flows,
to a projected ultimate flow of approximately 10.0 mgd by the year 2035. A capacity analysis of the City’s
sewer system was conducted and presented in the above-mentioned plan. Results from the existing
collection system analysis with peak wet weather flows indicate that several gravity pipelines are deficient
with respect to the “trigger” criteria.
Implementation of the proposed Project would not increase the wastewater treatment demands within
the Project area over the current level of demand, would not increase wastewater flows along any deficient
collection or wastewater conveyance system or result in any changes to approved land uses that effect
long-term wastewater projections and demands. Therefore, the proposed Project would not have an
adverse impact on the capacity of existing wastewater treatment systems and potential impacts would be
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
d)Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Less than Significant Impact: The City of Carlsbad provides solid waste collection and disposal services
through its contractor, Waste Management, Inc. The services provided consist of residential, commercial,
and industrial solid waste and designated recyclables collection service to over 20,000 single-family
households and more than 2,000 commercial accounts. The City currently diverts approximately 61 percent
of the solid waste generated within its jurisdiction from landfills. Solid waste that is not diverted from
Carlsbad is hauled to two (2) landfills in San Diego County. The majority of the solid waste is sent to the
Otay Landfill (approximately 98 percent), with the balance disposed of at the Sycamore Landfill
(approximately two (2) percent). The Otay Landfill has a permitted daily capacity of 5,000 tons but is
receiving only 2,260 tons daily, with an estimated remaining site life to 2027, according to the County. The
Otay Landfill had a remaining capacity of 27 million cubic yards as of March 2010. Based on the remaining
capacity and disposal rates, the Otay Landfill is expected to close in 2027.
The Sycamore Landfill has a maximum permitted daily capacity of 3,965 tons per day and a remaining
capacity of 71 million cubic yards as of February 2011. The Sycamore Landfill is undergoing environmental
review to permit a facility expansion. The expansion is anticipated to allow increased throughput volumes
and annual and daily permitted tonnage over time (e.g., beyond 2040), which could result in an estimated
additional capacity of up to 153 million cubic yards. Should the expansion occur as planned, the landfill
would not be expected to close until approximately 2042. The County of San Diego has indicated that, given
each existing landfill’s estimated remaining capacity, and assuming the planned expansion of the Sycamore
Landfill is implemented, as is the opening of the proposed Gregory Canyon Landfill, the County of San Diego
would have enough daily landfill capacity to accommodate the County’s solid waste disposal needs for the
next 18 years.
The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery identifies that typical park use would
generate 0.022 tons of solid waste per year. The operation of the proposed Project would not increase the
demand for solid waste disposal and, therefore, would not have any long-term impacts on the carrying
capacities of landfills that would serve the Project area. The construction operations for the proposed
Project would generate debris as well as some construction worker trash that would require solid waste
disposal. The amount of solid waste construction debris would be expected to be below the maximum
allowed at each landfill. During all stages of the construction site, the proposed Project would be required
to implement solid waste reduction measures to reduce the amount of waste generated, encourage reuse
and/or recycling of materials to the greatest extent feasible, and utilize materials made of post-consumer
materials where possible. The Project is consistent with the principles of the City of Carlsbad Reduce, Reuse,
Recycle initiatives, which aim to inform the community of the importance of recycling and provides
information on where and how to properly dispose of materials including hazardous waste,
construction/demolition waste, and electronic waste. The Project also complies with the California
Integrated Waste Management Act, which requires each jurisdiction in California to divert at least 50% of
its waste away from landfills through waste reduction and recycling. Therefore, implementation of the
proposed Project would not impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals and potential impacts
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
e)Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
No Impact: The City of Carlsbad would be required to comply with state and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste. Applicable regulations include California’s Integrated Waste Management Act of
1989 (AB 939), which required cities and counties throughout the state to divert 50 percent of all solid
waste from landfills through source reduction, recycling, and composting; 2008 modifications of AB 939, to
reflect a per-capita requirement rather than tonnage; AB 341, which increased the statewide goal for waste
diversion to 75 percent by 2020; and the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act (AB 1327),
which requires local agencies to adopt an ordinance to set aside areas for collecting and loading recyclable
materials in development Projects (CalRecycle). In accordance with the California Department of Resources
Recycling and Recovery disposal requirements, BMPs would be employed to reduce solid waste disposal
such as the recycling of all plastic bags, containers, and green waste composting, chipping, and shredding.
With implementation of the BMPs and compliance with California Department of Resources Recycling and
Recovery disposal requirements, potential solid waste disposal impacts would be less than significant.
Implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with the ability to comply with these
regulations.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
XX.WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified asvery high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project:Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
wi
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
In
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? ☐☐☐☒
Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks,
and thereby expose Project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? ☐☐☐☒
Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities)
that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
☐☐☐☒
Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes? ☐☐☐☒
PROJECT IMPACTS
a)Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact: The Project area is situated within an urban setting. As shown in Figure 19, Fire Hazard Severity
Zones, according to the California Department of Forest and Fire Protection, the Project area is not
identified as a high fire hazard area or near a state responsibility area. Therefore, the proposed Project
would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
b)Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
Project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
No Impact: The Project area is situated within an urban setting. As shown in Figure 19, according to the
California Department of Forest and Fire Protection, the Project area is not identified as a high fire hazard
area or near a state responsibility area. Therefore, the proposed Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks,
and thereby expose Project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
c)Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
No Impact: The Project area is situated within an urban setting. As shown in Figure 19, according to the
California Department of Forest and Fire Protection, the Project area is not identified as a high fire hazard
area or near a state responsibility area. Therefore, the proposed Project would not exacerbate fire risk or
result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
d)Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding
or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
No Impact: The Project area is situated within an urban setting. As shown in Figure 19, according to the
California Department of Forest and Fire Protection, the Project area is not identified as a high fire hazard
area or near a state responsibility area. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people or
structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of
runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.
BEACH ACCESS REPAIR PROJECT
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 19
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
Source: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE); July 2020.
XXI.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the Project:Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
wi
t
h
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
In
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
Le
s
s
t
h
a
n
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
Im
p
a
c
t
No
I
m
p
a
c
t
a)Does the Project have the potential to substantially degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
☐☒☐☐
b)Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means
that the incremental effects of a Project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past Projects, the effects of
other current Projects, and the effects of probable future Projects.)
☐☒☐☐
c)Does the Project have environmental effects, which will cause the
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?☐☒☐☐
PROJECT IMPACTS
a)Does the Project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially 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?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: No special status animal species were observed within
the Project area during the July 2018 and June 2020 general biological surveys. Additionally, CNNDB search
identified the following special status animal species to have a moderate potential to occur within the
Project area: coastal California gnatcatcher, coastal cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus
sandiegensis), western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus), and pocketed free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops
femorosaccus). If these species are present during construction, there would be the potential that adverse
direct impacts could occur. To avoid direct impacts to sensitive wildlife species, pre-construction surveys
would be required prior to the start of construction and best management practices would be
implemented. To avoid significant impacts and to ensure the Project does not cause sensitive wildlife
populations to drop below self-sustaining levels, Mitigation Measures BIO-1 to BIO-6 have been
incorporated into the Project. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 to BIO-6, potential
impacts to sensitive wildlife would be less than significant.
Two (2) observations of sensitive plant species occurred during the July 2018 survey, two (2) cliff spurge
(Euphorbia miseria) individuals within areas of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub and several individuals of coast
desert-thorn (Lycium californicum). Additionally, the following special status plant species have a moderate
potential to occur within the Project area: South Coast saltscale (Atriplex pacifica), Orcutt’s pincushion
(Chaenactis glabriuscula var. orcuttiana), Del Mar Mesa sand aster (Corethrogyne filaginifolia var. linifolia),
San Diego barrel cactus (Ferocactus viridescens), Robinson’s pepper-grass (Lepidium virginicum var.
robinsonii), and San Diego County viguiera (Viguiera laciniata [= Bahiopsis laciniata]).
The Project proposes to permanently impact 0.03 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub and 0.02 acres of
Maritime Succulent Scrub within the Project site, primarily along the upper boundary of the slope, where
the sidewalk would be cantilevered an additional 1.5’ over the bluff side to widen the walkway. Additionally,
the Project would temporarily impact 0.10 acres of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub and 0.02 acres of Maritime
Succulent Scrub, primarily in the areas adjacent to the five (5) stairways that transect, to replace the
stairway structures and to accommodate equipment access. Permanent impacts to Diegan Coastal Sage
Scrub and Maritime Succulent Scrub communities would be reduced to less than significant with
implementation of the following method: establishment of habitat onsite where non-native vegetation
currently exists or where there is a lack of vegetative cover. Temporarily impacted by Project activities
within Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub and Maritime Succulent Scrub communities would be reduced to less
than significant by revegetating temporary impacted areas with appropriate native vegetation following
Project implementation. To avoid significant impacts and to ensure the Project does not cause sensitive
plant vegetation communities to drop below self-sustaining levels, Mitigation Measures BIO-7 and BIO-8
have been incorporated into the Project. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-7 and BIO-8,
potential impacts to sensitive plants and sensitive vegetation communities would be less than significant.
The cultural study prepared for the proposed Project demonstrates that there are no recorded
archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources within the Project area. The Project would involve
minor excavation activities, grading into the slope at the base of the stairs for a new, small retaining wall at
Maple Avenue and Hemlock Avenue stairways. The potential to encounter archaeological resources would
be low. However, because cultural resources are known to occur within the vicinity of the Project area,
there is some potential for unknown archaeological resources to be present. To avoid potential significant
impacts to the resource, the City of Carlsbad must be notified immediately, and all work in the immediate
vicinity shall be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist and a qualified Native American/cultural
monitor can evaluate the nature and significance of the discovery. To avoid eliminating important examples
of the major periods of California history or prehistory, Mitigation Measures CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 have
been incorporated into the Project. With implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3,
potential adverse impacts to historical and archaeological resources would be less than significant.
The records search identified that one (1) fossil locality lies within one (1) mile of the Project site (in the
Sespe/Vaqueros Formation); however, none are recorded on the Project site. Because of the high
paleontological sensitivity of the Bay Point, Sespe/Vaqueros, and Santiago Formations and the presence of
a nearby fossil locality, there would be some potential to encounter paleontological resources during
excavations. The Project would involve minor excavation activities, grading into the slope at the base of the
stairs for a new small retaining wall at the Maple Avenue and Hemlock Avenue stairways. There could be
the potential that excavations could encounter Bay Point, Sespe/Vaqueros, and Santiago Formations.
SDNHM recommends the implementation of a paleontological resource mitigation program during any
proposed excavations that extend into these rock units. To avoid potential impacts to unknown
paleontological resources, a qualified paleontologist should observe earth disturbing activities occurring at
the Maple Avenue and Hemlock Avenue stairways and in the event paleontological resources are
encountered, all working in the immediate area of the finding will halt until the significance of the finding
is determined. To avoid eliminating important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory, Mitigation Measure GEO-2 has been incorporated into the Project. With the implementation of
Mitigation Measure GEO-2, potential impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.
b)Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a Project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past Projects, the effects of other current
Projects, and the effects of probable future Projects.)
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: A cumulative impact may be significant if a Project’s
incremental effect, though individually limited, is cumulatively considerable. Cumulatively considerable
means that the incremental effects of an individual Project are significant when viewed in connection with
the effects of past Projects, the effects of other current Projects and the effects of probable future Projects.
Cumulative impacts can occur as a result of the intersections of the interactions of environmental change
from multiple projects that could affect the same environmental resources, such as traffic, noise and air
quality. All potential significant impacts would be addressed with mitigation measures to reduce the extent
of potential impacts. Cumulative impacts are further addressed below.
The analysis provided in the Environmental Analysis section identifies that no impacts would occur to
aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources and mineral resources. Therefore, the proposed Project
would not contribute considerably to cumulative impacts in regard to these issues.
The analysis determined that potential impacts to energy, GHG emissions, land use and planning,
population and housing, public services, recreation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire would be less
than significant. Therefore, while the Project would contribute to cumulative impacts, the Project
contribution would not be considerable to result in significant cumulative impacts.
Impacts related to air quality construction emissions, biological resources, cultural/paleontological
resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise and tribal
resources were determined to be potentially significant and would require compliance with regulations and
implementation of Mitigation Measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the
proposed Project could contribute considerably to significant cumulative impacts in these environmental
issue areas. These environmental issue areas are discussed in further detail below.
AIR QUALITY
The context for assessing cumulative air impacts from short-term construction activities includes
quantifying emissions and comparing the emissions to the applicable SCAQMD screening thresholds. As
discussed in Air Quality, the proposed Project’s construction emissions would be below SDAPCD thresholds.
Further, the proposed Project would be required to implement SDAPCD Fugitive Dust Rules 52 and 54,
which would require dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance offsite.
With implementation of Fugitive Dust Rules 52 and 54, short-term construction air emissions would be less
than significant, and the proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to
impacts related to short-term air quality emissions. Related cumulative projects in the Project area would
be evaluated for potential air quality impacts and would be required to implement fugitive dust control
measures where needed and other measures as needed to minimize air quality impacts. Therefore, the
proposed Project considered with the related cumulative projects would not result in significant cumulative
air quality impacts.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Biological surveys conducted on the Project did not identify any special status animal species. However,
four (4) sensitive species, coastal California gnatcatcher, coastal cactus wren, western yellow bat, and
pocketed free-tailed bat were identified to have a moderate potential to occur within the Project area. The
Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures BIO-1 to BIO-6, which require pre-
construction surveys prior to the start of construction and implementation of BMPs to avoid impacting
special status wildlife species and their habitat.
Two (2) observations of sensitive plant species occurred during the July 2018 survey: two (2) cliff spurge
individuals within areas of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub and several individuals of coast desert-thorn.
Additionally, several sensitive plants were identified to have moderate potential to occur. The Project
would permanently impact 0.03 acres of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub and 0.02 acres of Maritime Succulent
Scrub and temporarily impact 0.10 acres of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub and 0.02 acres of Maritime Succulent
Scrub. Potential impacts to sensitive vegetation communities as identified in Mitigation Measures BIO-7,
and BIO-8, would be compensated by a combination of onsite restoration, which would ensure no net loss
of sensitive vegetation communities. The implementation of avoidance measures and mitigation measures
would reduce potential direct and indirect impacts to a less than significant level.
With the incorporation of mitigation measures, the Project would reduce potential impacts to biological
resources to less than significant. Therefore, the proposed Project would not considerably contribute to
impacts that would result in cumulative impacts to biological resources. Related cumulative projects would
be required to comply with state and federal laws that provide for the protection of biological resources
and, where needed, would need to implement measures to minimize impacts to biological resources.
Compliance with local, state, and federal laws would reduce the potential impacts to less than significant.
Therefore, the proposed Project considered with the related projects would not result in significant
cumulative impacts to biological resources.
CULTURAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The context for assessing cumulative impacts to local archeological and paleontological resources is to
determine whether the Project would result in a loss of these resources that could diminish or eliminate
important information relevant to the history of the Project area. The proposed Project would be required
to comply with Mitigation Measure CR-3, which requires the City of Carlsbad shall notify the County
Coroner in the event cultural resources and/or burial remains are identified. To avoid potential significant
impacts to cultural resources, a qualified archaeological monitor and a qualified Native American/cultural
monitor will be present on site during all ground disturbing activities. In the event that potential
archaeological resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, the qualified archaeologist on
site will notify the Associate State Archaeologist and City of Carlsbad immediately and all work shall stop
and/or be diverted in that area and within 30’ of the find until a qualified archaeologist can assess the
significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures.
Additionally, Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would be required, which would require a paleontologist to
observe earth disturbing activities and take appropriate steps to preserve or curate the artifact and halt or
redirect work in the event paleontological resources are encountered. This would eliminate any potential
loss of important archaeological or paleontological information that may be buried under the Project site.
With regard to a potential discovery of human remains during construction, the Project would be required
to comply with Mitigation Measure CR-2, which requires grading and construction activities to cease
pursuant to State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 until the County Coroner has made the necessary
findings as to the origin and disposition pursuant to Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resource Code.
Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to impacts
related to a cumulative loss of important archaeological or paleontological resources, and/or disturbed
human remains. Related cumulative projects in the Project area would be evaluated for potential impacts
to cultural resources and would be required to implement measures to reduce impacts to cultural
resources. Therefore, the proposed Project considered with the related cumulative projects would not
result in significant cumulative impacts to cultural resources.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Like other areas in southern California, the proposed Project could be subject to seismic shaking impacts.
The proposed improvements would be required to be designed to meet the City’s construction
development standards and the seismic design parameters of the California Uniform Building Code. The
proposed Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1, which requires compliance
with the geotechnical design measures recommended in the Project geotechnical report to ensure the
stability of the Project. To minimize erosion, the Project would be required to obtain a General Construction
Permit, prepare and implement a SWPPP, and implement erosion control measures. With compliance of
the California Uniform Building Code, geotechnical design measures, and erosion control measures,
potential geologic impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed Project would not
contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact with regards to geologic impacts. Related cumulative
projects would be required to comply with California Building Code requirements to minimize potential
geologic and seismic impacts and would be required to implement erosion control plans to minimize
potential erosion and sedimentation impacts. Therefore, the proposed Project considered with the related
projects would not result in significant cumulative geologic impacts.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The proposed Project would involve the use of incidental amounts of hazardous substances, such as fuel,
oil, and solvents. To ensure hazardous substances are not inadvertently released into the environment, the
Project would be required to comply with local, state, and federal laws regarding the handling, storage and
transporting of hazardous substances and would be required to spill prevention and clean-up BMPs during
construction. With compliance with local, state, and federal laws and implementation of BMPs, the
potential handling of hazardous materials would be less than significant. Therefore, the proposed Project
would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact with regards to the release of hazardous
materials into the environment. Related cumulative projects would be evaluated for potential hazards and
potential release of hazardous substances into the environment. The related projects would be required to
comply with local, state, and federal laws and regulations regarding the handling, storage, and transporting
of hazardous materials. Compliance with local, state, and federal laws would reduce the potential impacts
to less than significant. Therefore, the proposed Project considered with the related projects would not
result in significant cumulative hazard or hazardous material impacts.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Construction activities associated with the proposed Project could have the potential to generate degraded
surface water impacts which could adversely affect downstream receiving water bodies. The proposed
Project would be required to adhere to the NPDES MS4 Storm Water Permit requirement, which would be
to obtain a State General Construction Permit, filing an NOI to the Storm Water Report Tracking System
and obtain a waste discharger identification number from the SWRCB. Additionally, the General
Construction Permit would require the development and implementation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP would
identify BMPs to minimize degraded surface water runoff impacts. Therefore, the proposed Project would
not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact with regards to hydrology and water quality. Related
cumulative projects would be evaluated for potential hydrology impacts and would be required to ensure
they are not within a flood hazard area or would impede flood flows. Additionally, related projects would
be required to comply with the City’s NPDES MS4 Storm Water Permit requirements to maintain water
quality. Therefore, the proposed Project considered with the related cumulative projects would not result
in significant cumulative hydrology or water quality impacts.
NOISE
The proposed Project would result in a temporary increase in noise levels during construction activities.
The proposed Project is recommended to implement BMPs to minimize nuisance noise during construction,
which would ensure construction noise impacts would be less than significant. The proposed Project’s
short-term noise contribution would not be considerable. Related cumulative projects would be required
to comply with applicable noise and vibration standards and regulations to minimize noise and vibration
impacts. Therefore, the proposed Project considered with the related cumulative projects would not result
in significant cumulative noise impacts.
TRANSPORTATION
The Project was evaluated based on the City of Carlsbad’s VMT Analysis Guidelines and does not meet any
of the criteria to conduct a detailed VMT Analysis. The proposed Project is considered a local-serving public
facility, which is exempt as it will promotes increased walkability for the public in the coastal zone and
improved access to the beach, an important public resource. The proposed Project would not generate
additional traffic trips or additional vehicle miles within the Project area. Therefore, the proposed Project
would not contribute considerably to significant cumulative traffic impacts. During construction, traffic
control measures would be implemented to maintain safe vehicle and pedestrian access within the Project
area. Related cumulative projects would be required to prepare traffic studies to evaluate potential traffic
impacts and would be required to comply with the applicable traffic design standards, regulations, and
mitigation measures on a project-by-project basis to ensure significant cumulative traffic impacts do not
occur. Therefore, the proposed Project considered with the related cumulative projects would not result
in significant cumulative traffic impacts.
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
To avoid significant impacts to unknown tribal cultural resources that could be present on the Project site,
the proposed Project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure CR-2, which requires that
construction activities halt in the event tribal cultural resources are encountered. To avoid potential
significant impacts to cultural resources, a qualified archaeological monitor and a qualified Native
American/cultural monitor will be present on site during all ground disturbing activities. In the event that
potential archaeological resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, the qualified
archaeologist on site will notify the Associate State Archaeologist and City of Carlsbad immediately and all
work shall stop and/or be diverted in that area and within 30’ of the find until a qualified archaeologist can
assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures. This would
eliminate any potential loss of important tribal cultural resources that may be discovered at the Project
site. Compliance with Mitigation Measure CR-2 would ensure that a cumulative loss of tribal cultural
resources from the Project construction activities would not occur. In the event unknown burial remains
are encountered during construction, the Project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure
CR-3, which requires grading and construction activities to cease pursuant to State Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition
pursuant to Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resource Code. Therefore, the proposed Project would
not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to impacts related to tribal cultural resources, and
impacts would be less than significant. Related cumulative projects in the area would be required to comply
with the provisions of AB52, which would reduce cumulative impacts regarding impact to tribal cultural
resources. Therefore, the proposed Project considered with the related cumulative projects would not
result in significant cumulative impacts to cultural tribal resources.
c)Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: Potential impacts that could cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings were analyzed in this IS/MND include, but are not limited to air quality, GHG
emissions, geology hazards, hazardous materials, seismic hazards, hydrology/water quality, noise, and
wildfire. Each issue area found that there would be either no impacts, impacts would be less than
significant, or impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The proposed Project
would comply with local and regional planning programs, applicable codes, and ordinances, federal and
state laws and regulations, and mitigation measures to ensure that long-term operation activities and short-
term construction activities associated with the proposed Project would not result in direct, or indirect
adverse impacts to human beings.
20.LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES (if applicable)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIO-1: Prior to the start of construction activities, including vegetation removal, demolition, and
grading activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey for sensitive plants within the
Project footprint and immediately adjacent habitat. To the extent practicable, the plant survey
shall occur within the blooming period for those sensitive species previously observed onsite
and/or those species with a high potential to occur onsite. To the extent practicable, sensitive
plant species shall be avoided by Project activities. If sensitive plant avoidance is not
practicable, then it is recommended that the impacted species be either (a) transplanted
outside of the Project impact footprint prior to Project implementation, or (b) replanted onsite
(1:1 ratio) following Project implementation, if feasible.
BIO-2: Bat Protection. Prior to the start of construction, including demolition and grading activities,
all suitable areas within the Project site and an appropriate survey buffer shall be surveyed for
the presence of bat roosts by a qualified bat biologist. Surveys are required as follows:
(1)Initial surveys are recommended to be conducted at least six (6) months prior to the
initiation of vegetation removal and ground disturbing activities, ideally during the
maternity season (typically March 1 to August 31), to allow time to prepare mitigation
and/or exclusion plans if needed, and
(2)Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified bat biologist no more than
two (2) weeks prior to the initiation of vegetation removal and ground disturbing
activities. Surveys may entail direct inspection of the trees, stairways, and/or other
suitable habitat or nighttime surveys.
BIO-2(a): If active bat roosts are present, a qualified bat biologist shall determine the species of bats
present and the type of roost (i.e., day roost, night roost, maternity roost). If the biologist
determines that the roosting bats are not a special-status species and the roost is not being
used as a maternity roost, then the bats may be evicted from the roost by a qualified bat
biologist experienced in developing and implementing bat mitigation and exclusion plans.
BIO-2(a)(i): If special-status bat species or a maternity roost of any bat species is present, but no direct
removal of active roosts will occur, a qualified bat biologist shall determine appropriate
avoidance measures, which may include implementation of a construction-free buffer around
the active roost.
BIO-2(a)(ii): If special-status bat species or a maternity roost of any bat species is present and direct
removal of habitat (roost location) will occur, then a qualified bat biologist experienced in
developing bat mitigation and exclusion plans shall develop a mitigation plan to compensate
for the lost roost site. Removal of the roost shall only occur when the mitigation plan has been
approved by the City and only when bats are not present in the roost. The mitigation plan shall
detail the methods of excluding bats from the roost and the plans for a replacement roost in
the vicinity of the Project site. The mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City for approval
prior to implementation. The plan shall include: (1) a description of the species targeted for
mitigation; (2) a description of the existing roost or roost sites; (3) methods to be used to
exclude the bats if necessary; (4) methods to be used to secure the existing roost site to
prevent its reuse prior to removal; (5) the location for a replacement roost structure; (6) design
details for the construction of the replacement roost; (7) monitoring protocols for assessing
replacement roost use; (8) a schedule for excluding bats, demolishing of the existing roost, and
construction of the replacement roost; and (9) contingency measures to be implemented if the
replacement roosts do not function as designed.
BIO-2(b): If the pre-construction survey determines that no active roosts are present, then
trees/stairways/suitable habitat shall be removed within two (2) weeks following the
pre-construction survey.
BIO-2(c): All potential roost trees shall be removed in a manner approved by a qualified bat biologist,
which may include presence of a biological monitor.
BIO-2(d): All construction activity in the vicinity of an active roost shall be limited to daylight hours.
BIO-3: Construction activities, including vegetation removal, demolition, and grading activities, shall
occur outside of the gnatcatcher breeding season (February 15 - August 31). If breeding season
avoidance is not practicable, then BIO-4 shall be implemented.
BIO-4: If construction activities, including vegetation removal, demolition, and grading activities, will
occur within gnatcatcher breeding season (February 15 - August 31), the following will be
implemented:
a.A permitted biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey within the Project site
and adjacent suitable habitat prior to the start of work. The survey will be conducted
no more than three (3) days prior to construction.
b.If an active gnatcatcher nest (nest containing eggs or an empty or partial nest with
gnatcatchers actively exhibiting breeding behaviors) occurs within the Project site or
adjacent habitat, the biologist shall establish a 500’ no work buffer around the active
gnatcatcher nest and consultation with USFWS shall occur.
c.If no active gnatcatcher nests are observed during the pre-construction survey, no
further action is required.
BIO-5: A nesting bird survey shall be conducted within three (3) days prior to start of construction,
including demolition, grading, and vegetation removal, if construction and/or vegetation
removal occur during the nesting bird season identified in the HMP (February 15 - September
15). If vegetation removal occurs outside of nesting season or if no nesting birds are found, no
further action is required. If active nests are identified, the biologist will establish appropriate
buffers around the area (typically 500’ for raptors and sensitive species, 200’ for non-
raptors/non-sensitive species). All work within these buffers will be halted until the nesting
effort is finished (i.e., the juveniles are surviving independent from the nest). The onsite
biologist will review and verify compliance with these nesting boundaries and will verify the
nesting effort has finished. Work can resume within the buffer area when no other active nests
are found. Alternatively, a qualified biologist may determine that certain work can be
permitted within the buffer areas and would develop a monitoring plan to prevent any impacts
while the nest continues to be active (eggs, chicks, etc.). If vegetation clearing is not initiated
within 72 hours of a negative survey during nesting season, the nesting survey must be
repeated to confirm the absence of nesting birds.
BIO-6: Implementation of general BMPs is required to the extent practical. Key aspects of the BMPs
are to clearly delineate the limits of disturbance, use properly maintained equipment, properly
implement and monitor water quality BMPs, avoid use of chemicals near sensitive areas,
develop procedures for minimizing the likelihood of spills and to control sediment, ensure
worker safety, and minimize impacts to wildlife.
BIO-7: Permanent impacts to native vegetation communities shall be mitigated in accordance with
the City’s HMP for areas within the coastal zone as shown in Table 13, HMP Mitigation for
Impacts to Vegetation Communities, with the following methods:
•Establishment of habitat onsite where non-native vegetation currently exists or where
there is a lack of vegetative cover.
BIO-8: Areas where temporary impacts occur to native vegetation communities from the Project
construction activities shall be revegetated with appropriate native vegetation following
Project implementation. Habitat establishment onsite shall follow the recommendations
outlined in the Guidelines for Habitat Creation and Restoration (TAIC, 2009) prepared for the
City of Carlsbad. Plant material for revegetation efforts shall also be consistent with State Parks
Statement of Policy for plant genetic integrity (Policies 11.4 and 11.5) to ensure preservation
and diversity of vegetative entities within the State Park System.
BIO-9: Approved landscape specialist (appointed by the City of Carlsbad) to monitor and maintain the
vegetated communities that were impacts by construction activities as well as the areas that
were revegetated in compliance with the required mitigation ratios. One (1) year after the
completion of the Project, monitoring activities shall continue for an additional five (5) years.
Plant maintenance activities would include pruning as needed, shrubbery to be checked
monthly for breakage/damage and operation and maintenance of irrigation systems.
Watering Requirements for Native Plants:
•Water plants once a week, for the first month or until the rainy season begins.
•After the rain begins, only water through April and only if it has not rained in three (3)
consecutive weeks.
•Do not water in direct sun or on an unseasonably warm day.
•Infrequent deep watering is more desirable that frequent shallow watering.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
CR-1: Alterations needed to comply with the ADA would be consistent with both the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation, and the California Historical Building
Code. A description of specific improvements proposed for rehabilitation would be submitted
to State Parks for review and approval in advance of construction to ensure that the comfort
station retains its historic integrity.
A qualified archaeological monitor shall be present during all work taking place within 20’ of
the CRHR eligible Comfort Station. Photo documentation of the stairs, ramp, and comfort
station surrounding features (including the retaining walls and concrete slab/cantilevered
deck) prior to demolition is required. The qualified archaeologist will attend all pre-
construction meetings to consult with the grading and excavation contractors concerning
excavation schedules, archaeological field techniques, and safety issues. The qualified
archaeologist will consult with the qualified State Historian and Associate State Archaeologist
regarding any impacts that have the potential to affect the historic Comfort Station. The
archaeologist shall retain the option to reduce monitoring, with concurrence from the City and
qualified historian, if it is determined that work will not be impacting the resource.
CR-2: A qualified archaeological monitor and a qualified Native American/cultural monitor shall be
present during all ground disturbing activities related to this project as well as during any work
taking place within 20 feet of the CRHR eligible Comfort Station. The qualified archaeologist
and qualified Native American/cultural monitor will attend all pre-construction meetings to
consult with the grading and excavation contractors concerning excavation schedules,
archaeological field techniques, and safety issues. In the event that potential cultural resources
are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, the qualified archaeologist on site will notify
the Associate State Archaeologist from State Parks and City of Carlsbad immediately and all
work shall stop and/or be diverted in that area and within 30 feet of the find until the
significance of the resource can be assessed, and appropriate treatment measures developed
and implemented, if necessary. The Associate State Archaeologist from State Parks, an
appropriate representative from the City of Carlsbad, and a tribal representative shall assess
the significance of the cultural resource. The archaeologist and the tribal representative shall
make recommendations to the Lead Agency on the measures that will be implemented to
protect the cultural resource(s), including but not limited to, avoidance in place, excavation,
relocation, and further evaluation of the discoveries in accordance with California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If the resource is determined to be culturally significant, the
City of Carlsbad shall engage with the consulting Tribes to confer regarding the appropriate
treatment for the cultural resource. Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b), avoidance
is the preferred method of preservation.
Artifacts/cultural materials encountered during project work should be left in situ, if possible.
If project work or other planned future disturbance of that specific location requires the
cultural material to be relocated, it should be reburied as close to the original location as
possible, on State Parks property, in a location that will be free from future disturbance. If any
such artifacts are collected, they shall be prepared to a point of identification and permanent
preservation. Any/all collected items that have thoroughly been evaluated by a Luiseño Native
American monitor shall be repatriated to the consulting Tribes for reburial on project site. No
photographs shall be taken, and no invasive or non-invasive testing shall be conducted unless
prior written permission has been given by all the consulting Tribes. Materials of non-Native
American origin and as agreed upon by the tribal monitor may be collected for curation.
Curation must include obtaining an accession number and cataloging collections in the Excel
format approved for use with TMS. A monitoring report containing photograph documentation
and monitoring forms as well as an appended catalog of artifacts (if any are collected) shall be
prepared and shall signify completion of the mitigation. The archaeologist shall retain the
option to reduce monitoring, with concurrence from the State and City, if it is determined that
the sediments were previously disturbed or previously monitored.
CR-3: If human remains are encountered during excavation activities, all work shall halt in the vicinity
of the remains and the City of Carlsbad shall notify the County Coroner (California Public
Resources Code, Section 5097.98). In addition to the County Coroner, State Parks Associate
State Archaeologist/Tribal Liaison shall be notified. The County Coroner will determine whether
the remains are of forensic interest. If the Coroner, with the aid of a qualified archaeologist
and a qualified Native American/cultural monitor, determines that the remains are prehistoric,
he/she will contact the NAHC. The NAHC will be responsible for designating the most likely
descendant, who will be responsible for the ultimate disposition of the remains, as required by
Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. The MLD shall make his/her
recommendation within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. If feasible, the MLD’s
recommendation should be followed and may include scientific removal and non-destructive
analysis of the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials
(California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5). If the landowner rejects the MLD’s
recommendations, the landowner shall rebury the remains with appropriate dignity on the
property in a location that will not be subject to further subsurface disturbance (California
Public Resource Code, Section 5097.98).
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GEO-1: The final design of the Project shall consider and where feasible, implement the coast bluff
stability enhancement recommendations and the design and construction recommendations
provided in the Geotechnical Basis of Design prepared by Terra Cota Consultants, and
presented in Appendix F. Geotechnical recommendations focus on design and structural
considerations as well as materials and fill type to be used during construction. The
Geotechnical recommendations are listed below:
•Foundation Design for Sidewalk Support/Retaining Walls
•Slab Design for On-Grade Sidewalk Slabs
•Retaining Walls
•Structural Fill Placement
GEO-2: A qualified paleontologist should observe earth disturbing activities occurring at Maple Avenue
and Hemlock Avenue stairways. The paleontologist should attend the pre-construction
meeting to consult with the grading and excavation contractors concerning excavation
schedules, paleontological field techniques, and safety issues. In the event that potential
paleontological resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work shall stop in
that area and within 30’ of the find until a qualified paleontologist can assess the significance
of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures. Recovered specimens
shall be prepared to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing
of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. Specimens shall be curated into
a professional, accredited museum repository with permanent retrievable storage such as the
SDNHM. A report of findings, with an appended itemized inventory of specimens, shall be
prepared and shall signify completion of the mitigation. The paleontologist shall retain the
option to reduce monitoring, with concurrence from the City, if it is determined that the
sediments were previously disturbed. Monitoring may also be reduced with concurrence from
the City if potentially fossiliferous units are not present or, if present, are determined to have
a low potential to contain fossil resources.
NOISE
NOI-1: It is recommended that construction activities for the Project include the following noise
construction BMPs to minimize nuisance noise to the extent possible:
•Construction Equipment. Electrical power shall be used to run air compressors and
similar power tools where feasible. Internal combustion engines should be equipped
with a muffler of a type recommended by the manufacturer and in good repair. All diesel
equipment should be operated with closed engine doors and should be equipped with
factory-recommended mufflers. Construction equipment that continues to generate
substantial noise at the Project boundaries should be shielded with temporary noise
barriers, such as barriers that meet an STC rating of 25, sound absorptive panels, or
sound blankets on individual pieces of construction equipment. Stationary noise-
generating equipment, such as generators and compressors, should be located as far as
practically possible from the nearest residential property lines.
•Neighbor Notification. Provide notification to residential occupants adjacent to the
Project site at least 24 hours prior to initiation of construction activities that could result
in substantial noise levels at outdoor or indoor living areas. This notification should
include the anticipated hours and duration of construction and a description of noise
reduction measures being implemented at the Project site. The notification should
include a telephone number for local residents to call to submit complaints associated
with construction noise.
•Noise Control Plan. Construction contractors shall develop and implement a noise
control plan that includes a noise control monitoring program to ensure sustained
construction noise levels do not exceed 75 decibels over a 12-hour period at the nearest
sensitive receivers. The plan may include the following requirements:
−Contractor shall turn off idling equipment while not being used for operations after
idling for five (5) minutes.
−Contractor shall perform noisier operation during the times least sensitive to
receptors.
−All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be
equipped with factory-recommended mufflers.
−Electrical power shall be used to run air compressors and similar power tools and
to power any temporary structures, such as construction trailers or security staff
facilities, where practical.
TRANSPORTATION
T-1:Prior to the start of construction activities, a Traffic Control Management Plan will be prepared
and implemented.
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
TCR-1: Tribal Cultural Resources Monitoring
Prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing activities, the project developer shall:
a.Retain the services of a qualified archaeologist who shall be on-site for ground-disturbing activities.
In the event cultural material is encountered, the archaeologist is empowered to temporarily divert
or halt grading to allow for coordination with the Luiseño Native American monitor, or other
Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated Luiseño tribe (“TCA Tribe”), and to determine the significance
of the discovery. The archaeologist shall follow all standard procedures for cultural materials that
are not tribal cultural resources.
b.Enter into a Pre-Excavation Agreement, otherwise known as a Tribal Cultural Resources Treatment
and Tribal Monitoring Agreement, with a TCA affiliated consulting tribe the San Luis Rey Band of
Mission Indians or other Luiseño tribe that meets all standard requirements of the tribe for such
agreements. This Agreement will address provision of a Luiseño Native American monitor and
contain provisions to address the proper treatment of any tribal cultural resources and/or Luiseño
Native American human remains inadvertently discovered during the course of the project. The
Agreement will outline the roles and powers of the Luiseño Native American monitors and the
archaeologist and may include the following provisions. In some cases, the language below may be
modified in consultation with San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians if special conditions warrant.
c.A Luiseño Native American monitor shall be present during all ground-disturbing activities. Ground
disturbing activities may include, but are not limited to archaeological studies, geotechnical
investigations, clearing, grubbing, trenching, excavation, preparation for utilities and other
infrastructure, and grading activities.
d.Any and all uncovered artifacts of Luiseño Native American cultural importance shall be returned
to the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, and/or the Most Likely Descendant for later reburial
on project site, if applicable, and not be curated, unless ordered to do so by a federal agency or a
court of competent jurisdiction. Any and all uncovered artifacts of Luiseño Native American cultural
importance shall be returned to the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, and/or the Most Likely
Descendant, if applicable, and not be curated, unless ordered to do so by a federal agency or a
court of competent jurisdiction.
e.The Luiseño Native American monitor shall be present at the Project’s pre-construction meeting to
consult with grading and excavation contractors concerning excavation schedules and safety
issues, as well as to consult with the archaeologist PI concerning the proposed archaeologist
techniques and/or strategies for the Project.
f.Luiseño Native American monitors and archaeological monitors shall have joint authority to
temporarily divert and/or halt construction activities. If tribal cultural resources are discovered
during construction, all earth-moving activity within and around the immediate discovery area
must be diverted until the Luiseño Native American monitor and the archaeologist can assess the
nature and significance of the find.
g.If a significant tribal cultural resource(s) and/or unique archaeological resource(s) are discovered
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 tribal cultural resources. If, however, the Applicant
is able to demonstrate that avoidance of a significant and/or unique cultural resource 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. If a significant tribal cultural resource(s) and/or unique archaeological resource(s)
are discovered during ground-disturbing activities for this project, the San Luis Rey Band of Mission
Indians or other Luiseño tribe shall be notified and consulted regarding the respectful and dignified
treatment of those resources. Pursuant to California Public Resource Code Section 21083.2(b)
avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological and tribal cultural resources.
If, however, the Applicant is able to demonstrate that avoidance of a significant and/or unique
cultural resource 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.
h.When tribal cultural resources are discovered during the project, if the archaeologist collects
such resources, a Luiseño Native American monitor must be present during any testing or
cataloging of those resources. If the archaeologist does not collect the tribal cultural resources
that are unearthed during the ground-disturbing activities, the Luiseño Native American monitor
may, at their discretion, collect said resources and provide them to the San Luis Rey Band of
Mission Indians for dignified and respectful treatment in accordance with their cultural and
spiritual traditions.
i.If suspected Native American human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5(b) states that no further disturbance shall occur until the San Diego County Medical
Examiner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Public
Resource Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a
final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. Suspected Native American
remains shall be examined in the field and kept in a secure location at the site. A Luiseño Native
American monitor shall be present during the examination of the remains. If the San Diego County
Medical Examiner determines the remains to be Native American, the NAHC must be contacted by
the Medical Examiner within 24 hours. The NAHC must then immediately notify the “Most Likely
Descendant” about 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
Resource Code 5097.98.
j.In the event that fill material is imported into the project area, the fill shall be clean of tribal cultural
resources and documented as such. Commercial sources of fill material are already permitted as
appropriate and will be culturally sterile. If fill material is to be utilized and/or exported from areas
within the project site, then that fill material shall be analyzed and confirmed by an archaeologist
and Luiseño Native American monitor that such fill material does not contain tribal cultural
resources.
k.No testing, invasive or non-invasive, shall be permitted on any recovered tribal cultural resources
without the written permission of the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians. No testing, invasive or
non-invasive, shall be permitted on any recovered tribal cultural resources without the written
permission of the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians or any other Luiseño Native American
consulting tribe.
TCR-2: Tribal Cultural Resources Monitoring and/or Evaluation Report
Prior to the completion of Project construction, a monitoring report and/or evaluation report, if
appropriate, which describes the results, analysis, and conclusions of the monitoring program shall be
submitted by the Project Archaeologist, along with the Luiseño Native American monitor’s notes and
comments, to the City of Carlsbad for approval, and shall be submitted to the South Coastal Information
Center. Said report shall be subject to confidentiality as an exception to the Public Records Act and will not
be available for public distribution.
21.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.
Association of Environmental Professionals. 2010. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute
and Guidelines.
Bugbee, Richard. 2023. Kumeyaay History: The Indians of San Diego County. Available at:
https://www.kumeyaay.com/the-indians-of-san-diego-county.html
California Air Resources Board. 2016, 2017, 2018 Annual Air Quality Data Summaries. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and
Conservation Biology Institute. 2003. Volume III: MHCP Biological Monitoring and Management Plan.
California Department of Parks and Recreation (CADPR). 1983. San Diego Coastal State Park System
General Plan for South Carlsbad State Beach. Volume 3
1984. San Diego Coastal State Park System General Plan for Carlsbad State Beach. Volume 1.
2011. Statements of Policy. Policy 11.4: Preservation of Vegetative Entities; Policy 11.5: Wildlife
Management in Units of the State Park System.
2016. The Tamarack Avenue Comfort Station and Carlsbad State Beach – Historical Background Study
and Determination of Eligibility.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Transportation and Construction Vibration
Guidance Manual.
California Water Boards. 2019. San Diego Basin Water Quality Control Plan.
City of Carlsbad. 1995. Noise Guidelines Manual.
2004. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad.
2008. Pedestrian Master Plan.
2010. Carlsbad Community Vision.
2015. Carlsbad General Plan.
2015a. Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan and Climate Action
Plan (SCH #2011011004).
2017. Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines.
2018. Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines.
2019. Carlsbad Climate Action Plan Ordinances CS-437, CS-348, CS-349, and CS-350.
2019a. Community Forest Management Plan.
2019b. Local Coastal Program.
2019c. Transportation Demand Management Handbook.
2020. Climate Action Plan.
2020a. Guidance to Demonstrating Consistency with the Climate Action Plan, Form P-31.
2021. Sustainable Mobility Plan.
2022. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Guidelines.
2023. Municipal Code (CMC). Title 21 Zoning.
Cushing, Katherine Kao. Gleick, Peter. Haasz, Dana. Henges-Jeck, Christine. Mann, Aamardip. Srinivasan,
Veena. 2003. Pacific Institute. Waste Not, Want Not: The Potential for Urban Water Conservation in
California.
Deméré, T.A., and S.L. Walsh. 1993. Paleontological Resources, County of San Diego. Prepared for the
Department of Public Works, County of San Diego, 1–68.
ECORP. 2017. Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines. On file, City of Carlsbad,
California.
Eisentraut, P., and J. Cooper. 2002. Development of a Model Curation Program for Orange County’s
Archaeological and Paleontological Collections. Prepared by California State University, Fullerton and
submitted to the County of Orange Public Facilities Resources Department/Orange County Harbors,
Beaches, and Parks.
Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. September 2018
Golla, V. 2007. Linguistic History. Chapter 5 in California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity
(Jones and Klar eds.). Alta Mira Press, New York.
Hanson, Carl E., Towers, David A., and Meister, Lance D. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment. Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment.
Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Final Report.
Kennedy, M.P., and S.S. Tan, 2007, Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30’ x 60’
Quadrangle, California: California Geological Survey Regional Geologic Map Series, Map No. 2 (online).
KTUA. 2020. Carlsbad Boulevard Upper Sidewalk Widening Shading Impact Analysis.
KTUA. 2021. Visual Impact Analysis for the Carlsbad Beach Access Repair Project.
Ldn Consulting, INC. 2016. Preliminary Noise Study. Available at:
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/PC/190621-Supporting-Documents/Tran-
Monastery/Noise%20Impact%20Report.pdf
San Diego County Air Pollution Control District. 2023. Attainment Status for Criteria Pollutants. Available
at: https://www.sdapcd.org/content/sdapcd/planning/attainment-status.html
San Diego Regional Airport Authority/San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission. 2010. McClellan-
Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
Sawyer, John O., Todd Keeler-Wolf, and Julie M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation. 2nd ed.
California Native Plant Society and California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, California.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2009. Socioeconomic Assessment for PROPOSED
RULE 1155—PARTICULATE MATTER (PM) CONTROL.
TAIC. 2009. Guidelines for Habitat Creation and Restoration.
Technology Associates (TAIC). 2004. City of Carlsbad Open Space Management Plan. Prepared in
association with the Center for Natural Lands Management for the City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
Terracosta Consulting Group, Inc. 2018. Geotechnical Basis of Design for the Carlsbad Beach Access
Repairs.
TTG Engineers. 2016. Updated Materials Condition and Testing Survey Carlsbad Boulevard Seawall,
Sidewalk and Beach Access Stairs Carlsbad, California.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Wetland Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1. Vicksburg, MS: Environmental Laboratory.
2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West
Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-08-28.
Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1972. Federal Noise Control Act of 1972, 42
U.S.C. §4901 et seq.
USFWS. 2020. National Wetlands Inventory. Wetlands Mapper. Available at:
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/mapper.html.
City of Carlsbad Beach Access Repair Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the adoption of feasible mitigation measures to reduce the severity and magnitude of potentially significant environmental impacts associated with project development.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(d) states:
When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the CEQA Lead Agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15097(a) states: This section applies when a public agency has made the findings required under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of section 15091 to adopt a
mitigated negative declaration in conjunction with approving a project. In order to assure that the mitigation measures and project revisions identified in the negative declaration are implemented, the public agency shall adopt a program for monitoring or reporting on the revisions which it has required in the project and the measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures Monitoring or Reporting Action Timing of Monitoring
or Reporting Action
Responsible Party Compliance
Verification
Date
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIO-1: Prior to the start of construction activities,
including vegetation removal, demolition, and grading
activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey for
sensitive plants within the Project footprint and
immediately adjacent habitat. To the extent practicable,
the plant survey shall occur within the blooming period
for those sensitive species previously observed onsite
and/or those species with a high potential to occur
onsite. To the extent practicable, sensitive plant species
shall be avoided by Project activities. If sensitive plant
avoidance is not practicable, then it is recommended
that the impacted species be either (a) transplanted
outside of the Project impact footprint prior to Project
implementation or (b) replanted onsite (1:1 ratio)
following Project implementation, if feasible.
Conduct surveys for sensitive plant
species, and map as needed
Confirm locations are identified in
contract documents
Prior to construction Qualified Biological
Resources
Contractor
Mitigation Measures Monitoring or Reporting Action Timing of Monitoring
or Reporting Action
Responsible Party Compliance
Verification
Date
BIO-2: Bat Protection. Prior to the start of construction,
including demolition and grading activities, all suitable
areas within the Project site and an appropriate survey
buffer shall be surveyed for the presence of bat roosts
by a qualified bat biologist. Surveys are required as
follows:
(1)Initial surveys are recommended to be conducted at
least six months prior to the initiation of vegetation
removal and ground disturbing activities, ideally
during the maternity season (typically March 1 to
August 31), to allow time to prepare mitigation
and/or exclusion plans if needed, and
(2)Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted by a
qualified bat biologist no more than two (2) weeks
prior to the initiation of vegetation removal and
ground disturbing activities. Surveys may entail
direct inspection of the trees, stairways, and/or
other suitable habitat or nighttime surveys.
Conduct surveys as needed
Monitor construction activities for
nighttime lighting compliance
Prior to construction
occurring between
March 1 and August
31
Qualified Biological
Resources
Contractor
BIO-2(a): If active bat roosts are present, a qualified bat
biologist shall determine the species of bats present and
the type of roost (i.e., day roost, night roost, maternity
roost). If the biologist determines that the roosting bats
are not a special-status species and the roost is not being
used as a maternity roost, then the bats may be evicted
from the roost by a qualified bat biologist experienced in
developing and implementing bat mitigation and
exclusion plans.
Remove bat roost habitat as
needed
Prior to construction
occurring between
March 1 and August
31
Qualified Biological
Resources
Contractor
BIO-2(a)(i): If special-status bat species or a maternity
roost of any bat species is present, but no direct removal
of active roosts will occur, a qualified bat biologist shall
determine appropriate avoidance measures, which may
Flag construction-free buffer
around active roosts
Prior to construction
occurring between
March 1 and August
31
Qualified Biological
Resources
Contractor
Mitigation Measures Monitoring or Reporting Action Timing of Monitoring
or Reporting Action
Responsible Party Compliance
Verification
Date
include implementation of a construction-free buffer
around the active roost.
BIO-2(a)(ii): If special-status bat species or a maternity
roost of any bat species is present and direct removal of
habitat (roost location) will occur, then a qualified bat
biologist experienced in developing bat mitigation and
exclusion plans shall develop a mitigation plan to
compensate for the lost roost site. Removal of the roost
shall only occur when the mitigation plan has been
approved by the City and only when bats are not present
in the roost. The mitigation plan shall detail the methods
of excluding bats from the roost and the plans for a
replacement roost in the vicinity of the Project site. The
mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City for
approval prior to implementation. The plan shall include:
(1) a description of the species targeted for mitigation;
(2) a description of the existing roost or roost sites; (3)
methods to be used to exclude the bats if necessary; (4)
methods to be used to secure the existing roost site to
prevent its reuse prior to removal; (5) the location for a
replacement roost structure; (6) design details for the
construction of the replacement roost; (7) monitoring
protocols for assessing replacement roost use; (8) a
schedule for excluding bats, demolishing of the existing
roost, and construction of the replacement roost; and (9)
contingency measures to be implemented if the
replacement roosts do not function as designed.
Develop Bat Mitigation Plan Prior to construction
occurring between
March 1 and August
31
Qualified Biological
Resources
Contractor
BIO-2(b): If the pre-construction survey determines that
no active roosts are present, then
trees/stairways/suitable habitat shall be removed within
two (2) weeks following the pre-construction survey.
Remove trees/stairways/suitable
habitat as needed
Prior to construction
occurring between
March 1 and August
31
Construction
contractor
Mitigation Measures Monitoring or Reporting Action Timing of Monitoring
or Reporting Action
Responsible Party Compliance
Verification
Date
BIO-2(c): All potential roost trees shall be removed in a
manner approved by a qualified bat biologist, which may
include presence of a biological monitor.
Monitor removal of potential bat
roost trees as needed
Prior to construction
occurring between
March 1 and August
31
Qualified Biological
Resources
Contractor
BIO-2(d): All construction activity in the vicinity of an
active roost shall be limited to daylight hours.
Monitor hours of construction
activity in the vicinity of active
roosts
Prior to construction
occurring between
March 1 and August
31
Qualified Biological
Resources
Contractor
BIO-3: Construction activities, including vegetation
removal, demolition, and grading activities, shall occur
outside of the gnatcatcher breeding season (February 15
–August 31). If breeding season avoidance is not
practicable, then BIO-4 shall be implemented.
Monitor to confirm no vegetation
removal, demolition, or grading
activities (unless not practicable)
Between February 15
and August 31
Qualified Biological
Resources
Contractor
BIO-4: If construction activities, including vegetation
removal, demolition, and grading activities, will occur
within gnatcatcher breeding season (February 15 –
August 31), the following will be implemented:
a.A permitted biologist shall conduct a pre-
construction survey within the Project site and
adjacent suitable habitat prior to the start of work.
The survey will be conducted no more than three (3)
days prior to construction.
b.If an active gnatcatcher nest (nest containing eggs or
an empty or partial nest with gnatcatchers actively
exhibiting breeding behaviors) occurs within the
Project site or adjacent habitat, the biologist shall
establish a 500’ no work buffer around the active
gnatcatcher nest and consultation with USFWS shall
occur.
c.If no active gnatcatcher nests are observed during
the pre-construction survey, no further action is
required.
Conduct surveys for gnatcatcher
habitat, and map as needed
Establish 500-foot no work buffer
Consult with USFWS
Confirm locations are identified in
contract documents
Within three days
prior to construction
Qualified Biological
Resources
Contractor
Mitigation Measures Monitoring or Reporting Action Timing of Monitoring
or Reporting Action
Responsible Party Compliance
Verification
Date
BIO-5: A nesting bird survey shall be conducted within
three (3) days prior to start of construction, including
demolition, grading, and vegetation removal, if
construction and/or vegetation removal occur during the
nesting bird season identified in the HMP (February 15 –
September 15). If vegetation removal occurs outside of
nesting season or if no nesting birds are found, no
further action is required. If active nests are identified,
the biologist will establish appropriate buffers around
the area (typically 500’ for raptors and sensitive species,
200’for non-raptors/non-sensitive species). All work
within these buffers will be halted until the nesting
effort is finished (i.e., the juveniles are surviving
independent from the nest). The onsite biologist will
review and verify compliance with these nesting
boundaries and will verify the nesting effort has finished.
Work can resume within the buffer area when no other
active nests are found. Alternatively, a qualified biologist
may determine that certain work can be permitted
within the buffer areas and would develop a monitoring
plan to prevent any impacts while the nest continues to
be active (eggs, chicks, etc.). If vegetation clearing is not
initiated within 72 hours of a negative survey during
nesting season, the nesting survey must be repeated to
confirm the absence of nesting birds.
Conduct pre-construction surveys
Flag active nests if present,
establish buffers, and monitor
Develop monitoring plan as needed
Within three days
prior to construction
occurring between
February 15 and
September 15.
Qualified Biological
Resources
Contractor
BIO-6: Implementation of general BMPs is required to
the extent practical. Key aspects of the BMPs are to
clearly delineate the limits of disturbance, use properly
maintained equipment, properly implement and monitor
water quality BMPs, avoid use of chemicals near
sensitive areas, develop procedures for minimizing the
likelihood of spills and to control sediment, ensure
worker safety, and minimize impacts to wildlife.
Monitor construction activities for
compliance (e.g., visual inspections,
sampling) and document in project
file
During construction Construction
contractor
Mitigation Measures Monitoring or Reporting Action Timing of Monitoring
or Reporting Action
Responsible Party Compliance
Verification
Date
BIO-7: Permanent impacts to native vegetation
communities (including the newly shaded are on the
slope of the coastal bluff area) shall be mitigated in
accordance with the City’s HMP for areas within the
coastal zone as shown in Table 13, HMP Mitigation for
Impacts to Vegetation Communities, through the
following methods:
•Establishment of habitat onsite where non-native
vegetation currently exists or where there is a lack of
vegetative cover.
Confirm establishment of habitat
onsite
During restoration
activities
Construction
contractor
BIO-8: Areas where temporary impacts occur to native
vegetation communities from the Project construction
activities shall be revegetated with appropriate native
vegetation following Project implementation. Habitat
establishment onsite shall follow the recommendations
outlined in the Guidelines for Habitat Creation and
Restoration (TAIC, 2009) prepared for the City of
Carlsbad. Plant material for revegetation efforts shall
also be consistent with State Parks Statement of Policy
for plant genetic integrity (Policies 11.4 and 11.5) to
ensure preservation and diversity of vegetative entities
within the State Park System.
Confirm establishment of native
vegetation
During restoration
activities
Construction
contractor
BIO-9: Approved landscape specialist (appointed by the
City of Carlsbad) to monitor and maintain the vegetated
communities that were impacts by construction
activities as well as the areas that were revegetated in
compliance with the required mitigation ratios. One (1)
year after the completion of the Project, monitoring
activities shall continue for an additional five (5) years.
Plant maintenance activities would include pruning as
needed, shrubbery to be checked monthly for
breakage/damage and operation and maintenance of
irrigation systems.
Monitor and maintain vegetated
communities impacted by
construction and revegetated areas
as per the mitigation ratios
One year after the
completion of the
Project, monitoring
activities shall
continue for an
additional five (5)
years
Landscape
Specialist/Qualified
Contractor
Mitigation Measures Monitoring or Reporting Action Timing of Monitoring
or Reporting Action
Responsible Party Compliance
Verification
Date
Watering Requirements for Native Plants:
•Water plants once a week, for the first month or
until the rainy season begins.
•After the rain begins, only water through April and
only if it has not rained in 3 consecutive weeks.
•Do not water in direct sun or on an unseasonably
warm day.
•Infrequent deep watering is more desirable that
frequent shallow watering.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
CR-1: Alterations needed to comply with the ADA would
be consistent with both the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation, and the
California Historical Building Code. A description of
specific improvements proposed for rehabilitation
would be submitted to State Parks for review and
approval in advance of construction to ensure that the
comfort station retains its historic integrity.
A qualified archaeological monitor shall be present
during all work taking place within 20’of the CRHR
eligible Comfort Station. Photo documentation of the
stairs, ramp, and comfort station surrounding features
(including the retaining walls and concrete
slab/cantilevered deck) prior to demolition is required.
The qualified archaeologist will attend all pre-
construction meetings to consult with the grading and
excavation contractors concerning excavation
schedules, archaeological field techniques, and safety
issues. The qualified archaeologist will consult with the
qualified State Historian and Associate State
Archaeologist regarding any impacts that have the
potential to affect the historic Comfort Station. The
archaeologist shall retain the option to reduce
monitoring, with concurrence from the City and
Any improvements to the sidewalks
surrounding the comfort station
need to comply with the Americans
with Disabilities Act and the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
and Guidelines for Rehabilitation,
and the California Historical
Building Code
Provide description of proposed
improvements to State Parks prior
to construction for their review and
approval.
Qualified monitor to be present
during construction
Prior to construction
and during
construction
Qualified
Archaeological
Monitor or
Qualified
Contractor
Mitigation Measures Monitoring or Reporting Action Timing of Monitoring
or Reporting Action
Responsible Party Compliance
Verification
Date
qualified historian, if it is determined that work will not
be impacting the resource.
CR-2: A qualified archaeological monitor and a qualified
Native American/cultural monitor shall be present
during all ground disturbing activities related to this
project as well as during any work taking place within 20
feet of the CRHR eligible Comfort Station. The qualified
archaeologist and qualified Native American/cultural
monitor will attend all pre-construction meetings to
consult with the grading and excavation contractors
concerning excavation schedules, archaeological field
techniques, and safety issues. In the event that potential
cultural resources are discovered during ground-
disturbing activities, the qualified archaeologist on site
will notify the Associate State Archaeologist from State
Parks and City of Carlsbad immediately and all work shall
stop and/or be diverted in that area and within 30 feet
of the find until the significance of the resource can be
assessed, and appropriate treatment measures
developed and implemented, if necessary. The Associate
State Archaeologist from State Parks, an appropriate
representative from the City of Carlsbad, and a tribal
representative shall assess the significance of the
cultural resource. The archaeologist and the tribal
representative shall make recommendations to the Lead
Agency on the measures that will be implemented to
protect the cultural resource(s), including but not limited
to, avoidance in place, excavation, relocation, and
further evaluation of the discoveries in accordance with
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If the
resource is determined to be culturally significant, the
City of Carlsbad shall engage with the consulting Tribes
to confer regarding the appropriate treatment for the
cultural resource. Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code §
21083.2(b), avoidance is the preferred method of
preservation.
If archaeological materials or
potential tribal cultural resources
are encountered, halt construction
and establish a temporary no-work
buffer zone. Notify the Associate
State archaeologist from State Parks
and City of Carlsbad.
Determine eligibility and implement
appropriate treatment measures.
Prepare a monitoring report with
photo documentation and
monitoring forms and catalog any
artifacts found
During construction A qualified
Archaeological
Monitor and a
qualified Native
American/Cultural
Monitor or
Qualified
Contractor
Mitigation Measures Monitoring or Reporting Action Timing of Monitoring
or Reporting Action
Responsible Party Compliance
Verification
Date
Artifacts/cultural materials encountered during project
work should be left in situ, if possible. If project work or
other planned future disturbance of that specific
location requires the cultural material to be relocated, it
should be reburied as close to the original location as
possible, on State Parks property, in a location that will
be free from future disturbance. If any such artifacts are
collected, they shall be prepared to a point of
identification and permanent preservation. Any/all
collected items that have thoroughly been evaluated by
a Luiseño Native American monitor shall be repatriated
to the consulting Tribes for reburial on project site. No
photographs shall be taken, and no invasive or non-
invasive testing shall be conducted unless prior written
permission has been given by all the consulting Tribes.
Materials of non-Native American origin and as agreed
upon by the tribal monitor may be collected for curation.
Curation must include obtaining an accession number
and cataloging collections in the Excel format approved
for use with TMS. A monitoring report containing
photograph documentation and monitoring forms as
well as an appended catalog of artifacts (if any are
collected) shall be prepared and shall signify completion
of the mitigation. The archaeologist shall retain the
option to reduce monitoring, with concurrence from the
State and City, if it is determined that the sediments
were previously disturbed or previously monitored.
CR-3: If human remains are encountered during
excavation activities, all work shall halt in the vicinity of
the remains and the City of Carlsbad shall notify the
County Coroner (California Public Resources Code,
Section 5097.98). In addition to the County Coroner,
State Parks Associate State Archaeologist/Tribal Liaison
If human remains are
encountered, halt construction and
follow procedures as appropriate
During construction A qualified
Archaeological
Monitor and a
qualified Native
American/Cultural
Monitor or
Mitigation Measures Monitoring or Reporting Action Timing of Monitoring
or Reporting Action
Responsible Party Compliance
Verification
Date
shall be notified. The County Coroner will determine
whether the remains are of forensic interest. If the
Coroner, with the aid of a qualified archaeologist and a
qualified Native American/cultural monitor, determines
that the remains are prehistoric, he/she will contact the
(NAHC). The NAHC will be responsible for designating
the most likely descendant (MLD), who will be
responsible for the ultimate disposition of the remains,
as required by Section 7050.5 of the California Health
and Safety Code. The MLD shall make his/her
recommendation within 48 hours of being granted
access to the site. If feasible, the MLD’s recommendation
should be followed and may include scientific removal
and non-destructive analysis of the human remains and
any items associated with Native American burials
(California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5). If
the landowner rejects the MLD’s recommendations, the
landowner shall rebury the remains with appropriate
dignity on the property in a location that will not be
subject to further subsurface disturbance (California
Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98).
Qualified
Contractor
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GEO-1: The final design of the Project shall consider and
where feasible, implement the coast bluff stability
enhancement recommendations and the design and
construction recommendations provided in the
Geotechnical Basis of Design prepared by Terra Cota
Consultants, and presented in Appendix F. Geotechnical
recommendations focus on design and structural
considerations as well as materials and fill type to be
used during construction. The Geotechnical
recommendations are listed below:
•Foundation Design for Sidewalk Support/Retaining
Walls
•Slab Design for On-Grade Sidewalk Slabs
Select and implement appropriate
geotechnical recommendation for
repairs
Prior to construction Geologist or
Qualified
Contractor
Mitigation Measures Monitoring or Reporting Action Timing of Monitoring
or Reporting Action
Responsible Party Compliance
Verification
Date
•Retaining Walls
•Structural Fill Placement
GEO-2: A qualified paleontologist should observe earth
disturbing activities occurring at Maple Avenue and
Hemlock Avenue stairways. The paleontologist should
attend the pre-construction meeting to consult with the
grading and excavation contractors concerning
excavation schedules, paleontological field techniques,
and safety issues. In the event that potential
paleontological resources are discovered during ground-
disturbing activities, work shall stop in that area and
within 30’ of the find until a qualified paleontologist can
assess the significance of the find and, if necessary,
develop appropriate treatment measures. Recovered
specimens shall be prepared to a point of identification
and permanent preservation, including washing of
sediments to recover small invertebrates and
vertebrates. Specimens shall be curated into a
professional, accredited museum repository with
permanent retrievable storage such as theSDNHM. A
report of findings, with an appended itemized inventory
of specimens, shall be prepared and shall signify
completion of the mitigation. The paleontologist shall
retain the option to reduce monitoring, with
concurrence from the City, if it is determined that the
sediments were previously disturbed. Monitoring may
also be reduced with concurrence from the City if
potentially fossiliferous units are not present or, if
present, are determined to have a low potential to
contain fossil resources.
If paleontological resources are
encountered, halt construction and
establish a temporary no-work
buffer zone
During construction Paleontologist or
Qualified
Contractor
NOISE
Mitigation Measures Monitoring or Reporting Action Timing of Monitoring
or Reporting Action
Responsible Party Compliance
Verification
Date
NOI-1: It is recommended that construction activities for
the Project include the following noise construction
BMPs to minimize nuisance noise to the extent possible:
•Construction Equipment. Electrical power shall be
used to run air compressors and similar power tools
where feasible. Internal combustion engines should
be equipped with a muffler of a type recommended
by the manufacturer and in good repair. All diesel
equipment should be operated with closed engine
doors and should be equipped with factory-
recommended mufflers. Construction equipment
that continues to generate substantial noise at the
Project boundaries should be shielded with
temporary noise barriers, such as barriers that meet
anSTC rating of 25, sound absorptive panels, or
sound blankets on individual pieces of construction
equipment. Stationary noise-generating equipment,
such as generators and compressors, should be
located as far as practically possible from the nearest
residential property lines.
•Neighbor Notification. Provide notification to
residential occupants adjacent to the Project site at
least 24 hours prior to initiation of construction
activities that could result in substantial noise levels
at outdoor or indoor living areas. This notification
should include the anticipated hours and duration of
construction and a description of noise reduction
measures being implemented at the Project site. The
notification should include a telephone number for
local residents to call to submit complaints
associated with construction noise.
•Noise Control Plan. Construction contractors shall
develop and implement a noise control plan that
includes a noise control monitoring program to
ensure sustained construction noise levels do not
Incorporate Noise BMPs into
construction specifications
Provide written notification to
adjacent residences at least 24
hours prior to construction
activities that could result in
substantial noise levels at outdoor
or indoor living areas
Prepare Noise Control Plan
Prior to construction
As needed, at least 24
hours prior to
construction
Prior to construction
Construction
contractor
Mitigation Measures Monitoring or Reporting Action Timing of Monitoring
or Reporting Action
Responsible Party Compliance
Verification
Date
exceed 75 decibels over a 12-hour period at the
nearest sensitive receivers. The plan may include the
following requirements:
−Contractor shall turn off idling equipment while
not being used for operations after idling for five
(5)minutes.
−Contractor shall perform noisier operation
during the times least sensitive to receptors.
−All diesel equipment shall be operated with
closed engine doors and shall be equipped with
factory-recommended mufflers.
−Electrical power shall be used to run air
compressors and similar power tools and to
power any temporary structures, such as
construction trailers or security staff facilities,
where practical.
TRANSPORTATION
T-1: Prior to the start of construction activities, a Traffic
Control Management Plan will be prepared and
implemented.
Prepare Traffic Control
Management Plan
Prior to construction Construction
contractor
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
TCR-1: Tribal Cultural Resources Monitoring
Prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing
activities, the project developer shall:
a.Retain the services of a qualified archaeologist
who shall be on-site for ground-disturbing
activities. In the event cultural material is
encountered, the archaeologist is empowered to
temporarily divert or halt grading to allow for
coordination with the Luiseño Native American
monitor, or other Traditionally and Culturally
Luiseño Native American monitor
and archaeologist to be present at
pre-construction meetings and prior
to any ground disturbing-activities
Enter into a Pre-Excavation
Agreement/Tribal Cultural
Resources Treatment and Tribal
Monitoring Agreement, with the
San Luis Rey Band of Mission
Indians or other Luiseño tribe
Prior to any ground
disturbing
activities/construction
and during
construction activities
Archaeologist and
Native American
Monitor / Qualified
Contractor
Mitigation Measures Monitoring or Reporting Action Timing of Monitoring
or Reporting Action
Responsible Party Compliance
Verification
Date
Affiliated Luiseño tribe (“TCA Tribe”), and to
determine the significance of the discovery. The
archaeologist shall follow all standard
procedures for cultural materials that are not
Tribal Cultural Resources.
b.Enter into a Pre-Excavation Agreement,
otherwise known as a Tribal Cultural Resources
Treatment and Tribal Monitoring Agreement,
with a TCA affiliated consulting tribe the San Luis
Rey Band of Mission Indians or other Luiseño
tribe that meets all standard requirements of
the tribe for such agreements. This Agreement
will address provision of a Luiseño Native
American monitor and contain provisions to
address the proper treatment of any tribal
cultural resources and/or Luiseño Native
American human remains inadvertently
discovered during the course of the project. The
Agreement will outline the roles and powers of
the Luiseño Native American monitors and the
archaeologist and may include the following
provisions. In some cases, the language below
may be modified in consultation with San Luis
Rey Band of Mission Indians if special conditions
warrant.
c.A Luiseño Native American monitor shall be
present during all ground-disturbing activities.
Ground disturbing activities may include, but are
not limited to, archaeological studies,
geotechnical investigations, clearing, grubbing,
trenching, excavation, preparation for utilities
and other infrastructure, and grading activities.
Should any cultural materials be
discovered, construction must halt
and notify San Luis Rey Band of
Mission Indians or other Luiseño
tribe
Should human remains be
encountered, halt work and notify
the San Diego County Medical
Examiner
Mitigation Measures Monitoring or Reporting Action Timing of Monitoring
or Reporting Action
Responsible Party Compliance
Verification
Date
d.Any and all uncovered artifacts of Luiseño Native
American cultural importance shall be returned
to the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians,
and/or the Most Likely Descendant for later
reburial on project site, if applicable, and not be
curated, unless ordered to do so by a federal
agency or a court of competent jurisdiction. Any
and all uncovered artifacts of Luiseño Native
American cultural importance shall be returned
to the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians,
and/or the Most Likely Descendant, if applicable,
and not be curated, unless ordered to do so by a
federal agency or a court of competent
jurisdiction.
e.The Luiseño Native American monitor shall be
present at the project’s pre-construction
meeting to consult with grading and excavation
contractors concerning excavation schedules
and safety issues, as well as to consult with the
archaeologist PI concerning the proposed
archaeologist techniques and/or strategies for
the project.
f.Luiseño Native American monitors and
archaeological monitors shall have joint
authority to temporarily divert and/or halt
construction activities. If tribal cultural resources
are discovered during construction, all earth-
moving activity within and around the
immediate discovery area must be diverted until
the Luiseño Native American monitor and the
archaeologist can assess the nature and
significance of the find.
Mitigation Measures Monitoring or Reporting Action Timing of Monitoring
or Reporting Action
Responsible Party Compliance
Verification
Date
g.If a significant tribal cultural resource(s) and/or
unique archaeological resource(s) are discovered
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 tribal cultural resources. If,
however, the Applicant is able to demonstrate
that avoidance of a significant and/or unique
cultural resource 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. If a significant tribal cultural
resource(s) and/or unique archaeological
resource(s) are discovered during ground-
disturbing activities for this project, the San Luis
Rey Band of Mission Indians or other Luiseño
tribe shall be notified and consulted regarding
the respectful and dignified treatment of those
resources. Pursuant to California Public Resource
Code Section 21083.2(b) avoidance is the
preferred method of preservation for
archaeological and tribal cultural resources. If,
however, the Applicant is able to demonstrate
that avoidance of a significant and/or unique
cultural resource 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.
Mitigation Measures Monitoring or Reporting Action Timing of Monitoring
or Reporting Action
Responsible Party Compliance
Verification
Date
h.When tribal cultural resources are discovered
during the project, if the archaeologist collects
such resources, a Luiseño Native American
monitor must be present during any testing or
cataloging of those resources. If the
archaeologist does not collect the tribal cultural
resources that are unearthed during the ground-
disturbing activities, the Luiseño Native
American monitor may, at their discretion,
collect said resources and provide them to the
San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians for
dignified and respectful treatment in accordance
with their cultural and spiritual traditions.
i.If suspected Native American human remains
are encountered, California Health and Safety
Code Section 7050.5(b) states that no further
disturbance shall occur until the San Diego
County Medical Examiner has made the
necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant
to California Public Resources Code Section
5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free
from disturbance until a final decision as to the
treatment and disposition has been made.
Suspected Native American remains shall be
examined in the field and kept in a secure
location at the site. A Luiseño Native American
monitor shall be present during the examination
of the remains. If the San Diego County Medical
Examiner determines the remains to be Native
American, NAHC must be contacted by the
Medical Examiner within 24 hours. The NAHC
must then immediately notify the “Most Likely
Descendant” about the discovery. The Most
Mitigation Measures Monitoring or Reporting Action Timing of Monitoring
or Reporting Action
Responsible Party Compliance
Verification
Date
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.
j.In the event that fill material is imported into the
project area, the fill shall be clean of tribal
cultural resources and documented as such.
Commercial sources of fill material are already
permitted as appropriate and will be culturally
sterile. If fill material is to be utilized and/or
exported from areas within the project site, then
that fill material shall be analyzed and confirmed
by an archaeologist and Luiseño Native
American monitor that such fill material does
not contain tribal cultural resources.
k.No testing, invasive or non-invasive, shall be
permitted on any recovered tribal cultural
resources without the written permission of the
San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians. No testing,
invasive or non-invasive, shall be permitted on
any recovered tribal cultural resources without
the written permission of the San Luis Rey Band
of Mission Indians or any other Luiseño Native
American consulting tribe.
TCR-2: Tribal Cultural Resources Monitoring and/or
Evaluation Report
Prior to the completion of project construction, a
monitoring report and/or evaluation report, if
appropriate, which describes the results, analysis, and
conclusions of the monitoring program shall be
submitted by the Project Archaeologist, along with the
Luiseño Native American monitor’s notes and
Prepare a Tribal Cultural Resources
Monitoring Report and the Project
Archaeologist shall submit the
report to the South Coastal
Information Center
Prior to construction
completion
Archaeologist /
Qualified
Contractor
Mitigation Measures Monitoring or Reporting Action Timing of Monitoring
or Reporting Action
Responsible Party Compliance
Verification
Date
comments, to the City of Carlsbad for approval, and shall
be submitted to the South Coastal Information Center.
Said report shall be subject to confidentiality as an
exception to the Public Records Act and will not be
available for public distribution.
AAPPENDIX J:
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR
THE BEACH ACCESS REPAIR PROJECT
CComments and Responses to Comments
The City of Carlsbad, serving as the CEQA Lead Agency, prepared a Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/MND) for the Beach Access Repair Project. CEQA requires a 30-day public review period for the
Draft IS/MND document. The Draft IS/MND was released for public comment on May 19, 2023, and public
comment period closed on June 19, 2023. The public comment period allows public agencies and interested
parties the opportunity to review and comment on the document. In accordance with the requirements of
CEQA, the City of Carlsbad provided a Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration to the
public, responsible agencies and the San Diego County Clerk. The City of Carlsbad published a notice in the
Coast News Group (a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the proposed Project). The Draft
IS/MND was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by state agencies, and to responsible and trustee
agencies with jurisdiction by law over resources affected by the Project. The IS/MND was made available for
public review online at https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/agendas-
minutes-notices.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(b) states that prior to approving a project, the Lead Agency must consider the
proposed IS/MND together with any comments received during the public review process. Written responses to
comments are not required; however, the City of Carlsbad, as Lead Agency, has prepared a written response to
the comments received for consideration by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. The table below
identifies a number for each comment letter received, the author of the comment letter, and the date received.
Public Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND
Comment Letter Number Commenter Date Received
1 Jacek Glinkowski May 19, 2023
2 Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians:
Cheryl Madrigal
June 14, 2023
3 California State Parks:
Nicole Van Doren
June 14, 2023
4 California Department of Fish and
Wildlife
June 19, 2023
The comment letters and responses follow. The comment letters have been numbered sequentially and each
separate issue raised by the commenter, if more than one, has been assigned a number. The responses to each
comment identify first the number of the comment letter, and then the number assigned to each issue
(Response 1-1, for example, indicates that the response is for the first issue raised in comment Letter 1).
Responses are provided in this IS/MND as a matter of public disclosure and transparency.
Based on the evaluation in the IS/MND and the comments received, the City of Carlsbad has determined that all
potential impacts associated with the Project are less than significant with incorporation of identified mitigation
measures. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has also been prepared and will be implemented for the Project.
Therefore, the City of Carlsbad has determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with CEQA
is the appropriate environmental document for the Project.
-----Original Message----- From: Glinkowski, Jacek <Jacek.Glinkowski@viasat.com>Sent: Friday, May 19, 2023 6:34 PM To: Izzak Mireles <Izzak.Mireles@carlsbadca.gov>Subject: City of Carlsbad Beach Access Repairs Project - COMMENTS
LED lighting under railings on the stairs Bad idea. Why anybody thinks those are needed? Visit the west sidewalk after dark. Very few peopleon the sidewalk. Light spilling from street lights is sufficient.IF some code requires them, then make them red colour (no blue component to the light at least) and
lowest code allowed intensity.
Street lights replacement.Since the lights are to be replaced anyway.. Ensure light fixtures are such that from houses on the East side no light can be seen from fixtures or reflections from fixtures.
Ensure the intensity is lowest permitted by code.Definitely no white LEDs. Red preferred, or as red as possible. No blue component in the light.
Added bonus - blue component of LEDs deteriorates fastest. Without blue component the LEDs will last longer.
Removal of railings along the curb. If that is being done, remove same on the bridge just south of Tamarack over lagoon, where sidewalk is VERY narrow already.
Since it is just removal additional cost is quite small for a quite large benefit.
Stairs from sidewalk to the beach at TamarackThe steps are very shallow so adults require very careful feet placing when walking down.
Since there are several feet between lowest step and the sea wall walkway, make each step wider -similar to width used on the other 4 staircases being repaired/replaced.
Concrete quality (seeing as the existing one deteriorated in places due to rebar swelling related to
corrosionIn several places on the sidewalk the concrete swelled from rebar corrosion.
Ensure the contract with the company doing the concrete works specifies concrete and rebar suitable for high corrosion environment
AND how long it must last before showing deteriorationAND how to measure normal versus abnormal deterioration.
To ensure highest quality withhold substantial portion of the paymentto be released over many years in installments when quality holds
OR to be used for repairs/replacement if the quality does not hold Ensure the contract language is tight, specific, and quality deterioration measurable to allow
enforcement.CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
&RPPHQW
Comment 1-1
Comment 1-3
Comment 1-4
Comment 1-5
Comment Letter #1
RResponses to Comment Letter #1, Jacek Glinkowski, May 19th, 2023
Comment 1-1: The City is appreciative of the information provided. The proposed materials and methods for
installation of under rail lighting (if included) will be determined by the City and qualified
construction contractor closer to the start of construction. Details pertaining to the exact type
or model of light fixtures are not applicable to CEQA review. Project impacts related to source
of substantial light and glare and impacts on nighttime views are discussed in IS/MND Section
I.(d), “Aesthetics”. Lighting used within the Project area will include low lumen light and down-
lighting intended to provide safe and illuminated public access to the beach. The proposed
lighting, if included in the Project, would not create a new source of substantial light or glare,
would not adversely affect nighttime views, and would result in a low visual impact.
Furthermore, this comment does not pertain to the adequacy or completeness of the IS/MND.
This comment is noted.
Comment 1-2: dhe materials, location, and placement of proposed lighting will be installed to conform with
the current aesthetic of the Project area and will be to current code standards. Selection of
lighting, including LEDs, will be made to minimize glare and reduce potential impacts on
nighttime views. Project impacts related to source of substantial light and glare and impacts on
nighttime views are discussed in IS/MND Section I.(d), “Aesthetics”. This comment is noted and
does not pertain to the adequacy or completeness of the IS/MND.
Comment 1-3: Railings on the bridge south of Tamarack Avenue are located outside of the Project area
presented in the IS/MND, are not part of the Project or other cumulative projects, and
consideration of their removal was therefore not evaluated under CEQA.
Comment 1-4: The proposed stairway replacements will be in-kind and consistent with current building code
standards. Dimensions of proposed stairway replacement are not evaluated under CEQA and
will be determined by the City of Carlsbad and the qualified construction contractor. This
comment is noted.
Comment 1-5: The materials, type, and quality of concrete and rebar to be used during construction will be
determined by the City of Carlsbad and the qualified construction contractor. The Project
proposes to perform in-kind replacements of stairways and walkways along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Speculative details regarding the estimated longevity of construction materials are
not evaluated under CEQA and thus are not included in the IS/MND. Furthermore, contract
language pertaining to construction and payment will be determined by the City of Carlsbad
and is not part of the CEQA review process.
Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians
CULTURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
One Government Center Lane | Valley Center | CA 92082(760) 749-1092 | Fax: (760) 749-8901 | rincon-nsn.gov
Bo Mazzetti
Chairman
Tishmall Turner
Vice Chair
Laurie E. Gonzalez
Council Member
John Constantino
Council Member
Joseph Linton
Council Member
June 14, 2023
Sent via email: Izzak.mireles@carlsbadca.govCity of Carlsbad
Community Development DepartmentPlanning DivisionMr. Izzak Mireles
1635 Faraday AvenueCarlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Beach Access Repair Project: CDP 2021-0011/HDP 2021-0002/HMP; 2021-0003 (DEV 2021-0049)
Dear Mr. Mireles:
This letter is written on behalf of the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians (“Rincon Band” or “Tribe”), a federally
recognized Indian Tribe and sovereign government. Thank you for ongoing consultation on the Beach Access
Repair Project. The Tribe retrieved the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the
above referenced project from the city’s website.
Review of our files did not identify receipt of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND). Please provide us with the date when the NOI was distributed. Please specify if it was sent electronically
or via U.S. Postal Service, and what email or address was used. We hope this will ensure that the Tribe will receive
future notifications.
Again, the Tribe would like to elaborate on our in-person meeting on January 24, 2023, and reiterate the
geographical associations and historical and living relationships of the different Luiseño Bands to various places,
landscapes, and resources throughout the vast and diverse Luiseño ancestral territory. This includes the Rincon
Band’s connections to the lands and waters of what today is called the City of Carlsbad.
Before the intensive and often violent changes imposed on the geographical movement, mobility, and traditional
practices and lifeways of our ancestors and our ancestral territory by colonial-settler societies and governments,
Luiseños inhabited coastal areas of Carlsbad to hunt, fish, and collect marine resources. Some of our Rincon Tribal
members additionally have familial relationships to named Luiseño villages within our ancestral territory located
along the Pacific Coast and in general proximity to the Project area. It is concerning for the Tribe that cultural
mitigation measures are essentially dismissive of Tribes other than the San Luis Rey Band. Such extremely narrow
methods and practices invalidate impact assessments and associated measures of management, avoidance, and
mitigation.
The Rincon Band is delighted to have learned in today’s consultation meeting that the city is not -in general-
opposed to revisions of the city’s informal standard cultural mitigation measures. The Tribe’s Historic Preservation
Comment
2-1
Comment Letter #2
Rincon Band’s comment on the Draft MND for the Beach Access Repair Project Page 2 of 4
Office (THPO) has reviewed the Draft MND and we request the following revisions regarding the proposed project
specific cultural mitigation measures to be inclusive of Rincon:
Tribal Cultural Resources:
TCR-1: Tribal Cultural Resources Monitoring Prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing
activities, the project developer shall:
a. Retain the services of a qualified archaeologist who shall be on-site for ground-disturbing activities. In
the event cultural material is encountered, the archaeologist is empowered to temporarily divert or halt
grading to allow for coordination with the Luiseño Native American monitor, or other Traditionally and
Culturally Affiliated Luiseño tribe (“TCA Tribe”), and to determine the significance of the discovery. The
archaeologist shall follow all standard procedures for cultural materials that are not Tribal Cultural
Resources.
b. Enter into a Pre-Excavation Agreement, otherwise known as a Tribal Cultural Resources Treatment and
Tribal Monitoring Agreement, with an affiliated consulting Tribe the San Luis Rey Band of Mission
Indians or other Luiseño tribe that meets all standard requirements of the tribe for such Agreements.
This agreement will address provision of a Luiseño Native American monitor and contain provisions to
address the proper treatment of any tribal cultural resources and/or Luiseño Native American human
remains inadvertently discovered during the course of the project. The Agreement will outline the roles
and powers of the Luiseño Native American monitors and the archaeologist and may include the
following provisions. In some cases, the language below may be modified in consultation with San Luis
Rey Band of Mission Indians if special conditions warrant.
c. A Luiseño Native American monitor shall be present during all ground-disturbing activities. Ground
disturbing activities may include, but are not limited to, archaeological studies, geotechnical
investigations, clearing, grubbing, trenching, excavation, preparation for utilities and other
infrastructure, and grading activities.
d. Any and all uncovered artifacts of Luiseño Native American cultural importance shall be returned to the
TCA Tribe San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians for later reburial on project site, and/or the Most Likely
Descendant, if applicable, and not be curated, unless ordered to do so by a federal agency or a court of
competent jurisdiction.
e. The Luiseño Native American monitor shall be present at the project’s pre-construction meeting to
consult with grading and excavation contractors concerning excavation schedules and safety issues, as
well as to consult with the archaeologist PI concerning the proposed archaeologist techniques and/or
strategies for the project.
f. Luiseño Native American monitors and archaeological monitors shall have joint authority to
temporarily divert and/or halt construction activities. If tribal cultural resources are discovered during
construction, all earth moving activity within and around the immediate discovery area must be
diverted until the Luiseño Native American monitor and the archaeologist can assess the nature and
significance of the find.
g. If a significant tribal cultural resource(s) and/or unique archaeological resource(s) are discovered during
ground-disturbing activities for this project, the consulting affiliated Tribe(s) San Luis Rey Band of
Mission Indians or other Luiseño tribe shall be notified and consulted regarding the respectful and
Comment 2-2
Rincon Band’s comment on the Draft MND for the Beach Access Repair Project Page 3 of 4
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 tribal cultural resources. If,
however, the Applicant is able to demonstrate that avoidance of a significant and/or unique cultural
resource is infeasible and a data recovery plan is authorized by the City of Carlsbad as the lead agency,
the affiliated Tribes San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians shall be consulted regarding the drafting and
finalization of any such recovery plan.
h.When tribal cultural resources are discovered during the project, if the archaeologist collects such
resources, a Luiseño Native American monitor must be present during any testing or cataloging of those
resources. If the archaeologist does not collect the tribal cultural resources that are unearthed during
the ground disturbing activities, the Luiseño Native American monitor may, at their discretion, collect
said resources for later reburial on project site and provide them to the San Luis Rey Band of Mission
Indians for dignified and respectful treatment in accordance with their cultural and spiritual traditions.
i.If suspected Native American human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5(b) states that no further disturbance shall occur until the San Diego County Medical
Examiner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Public Resources
Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision
as to the treatment and disposition has been made. Suspected Native American remains shall be
examined in the field and kept in a secure location at the site. A Luiseño Native American monitor shall
be present during the examination of the remains. If the San Diego County Medical Examiner
determines the remains to be Native American, NAHC must be contacted by the Medical Examiner
within 24 hours. The NAHC must then immediately notify the “Most Likely Descendant” about 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.
j.In the event that fill material is imported into the project area, the fill shall be clean of tribal cultural
resources and documented as such. Commercial sources of fill material are already permitted as
appropriate and will be culturally sterile. If fill material is to be utilized and/or exported from areas
within the project site, then that fill material shall be analyzed and confirmed by an archaeologist and
Luiseño Native American monitor that such fill material does not contain tribal cultural resources.
k.No testing, invasive or non-invasive, shall be permitted on any recovered tribal cultural resources
without the written permission of the affiliated TribesSLRBMI or any other Luiseño Native American
consulting tribe.
TCR-2: Tribal Cultural Resources Monitoring and/or Evaluation Report Prior to the completion of project
construction, a monitoring report and/or evaluation report, if appropriate, which describes the results,
analysis, and conclusions of the monitoring program shall be submitted by the Project Archaeologist,
along with the Luiseño Native American monitor’s notes and comments, to the City of Carlsbad for
approval, and shall be submitted to the South Coastal Information Center. Said report shall be subject to
confidentiality as an exception to the Public Records Act and will not be available for public distribution.
We urge the city to reassess current practices and guidelines with not only the Governor’s Office of Planning and
Research’s Tribal Consultation Guidelines1 in mind but also consider more recent reflections on a state and federal
1 Tribal Cultural Resources (AB 52) - Office of Planning and Research (ca.gov)
Com. 2-2 CONT.
Rincon Band’s comment on the Draft MND for the Beach Access Repair Project Page 4 of 4
level in regard to indigenous people. Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-15-19, and the White House’s
Memorandum on Tribal Consultation and Strengthening Nation-to-Nation Relationships all recognize that
improvement of relationships between agencies and Tribes are necessary. We are looking forward to further
consulting with the city on critical changes of cultural protection practices to collaboratively protect and preserve
our cultural heritage.
If you have additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact our office at your convenience at
(760)749-1092.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Madrigal Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Cultural Resources Manager
RResponses to Comment Letter #2, Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians: Cheryl Madrigal, June 14th, 2023
Comment 2-1: The Notice of Intent (NOI) to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was posted for
public review on May 19th, 2023. The City of Carlsbad published the NOI in the Coast News
Group (a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the proposed Project). The
Draft IS/MND was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by state agencies, and to
responsible and trustee agencies with jurisdiction by law over resources affected by the
project. The IS/MND was made available for public review online at
https://www.carlsbadca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/agendas-
minutes-notices.
Comment 2-2: The City of Carlsbad has reviewed the revisions proposed by Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians
and incorporated minor text modifications to Mitigation Measure TCR-1. The Rincon Band of
Luiseño Indians requested that references to the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians be
removed from TCR-1 and revised to be inclusive of all Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated
Luiseño consulting tribes (“TCA Tribes”). The City of Carlsbad has revised TCR-1 to reference
Luiseño tribes as TCA consulting tribes and reference language from Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural,
and Paleontological Resources Guidelines. Please note that part “h” of TCR-1 was removed as it
was redundant to language in mitigation measure CR-2. Please refer to the IS/MND document
Section XVIII, “Tribal Cultural Resources” and Appendix I, “Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Plan” for the updated Mitigation Measure TCR-1. These revisions do not affect the significance
of potential environmental impacts as presented in the IS/MND nor introduce a new potential
impact.
State of California • Natural Resources Agency Gavin Newsom, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Armando Quintero, Director
San Diego Coast District • 4477 Pacific Highway • San Diego, CA 92110 • (619) 688-3260
June 14, 2023
Izzak Mireles, Associate Planner
City of Carlsbad, Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Izzak.Mireles@carlsbadca.gov
RE: MND Beach Access Repairs Project, CDP 2021-0011/HDP 2021-002/HMP 2021-003 (DEV 2021-0049)
Dear Mr. Mireles,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Beach Access Repairs Project, located in the City of Carlsbad right-of-way along the western area of Carlsbad Boulevard and beach promenades from Pine Avenue to Tamarack Avenue. California State Parks (CSP) is the land manager for Carlsbad State Beach which is adjacent to the City of
Carlsbad and this project, some of which falls within our jurisdiction.
We understand the project proposes structural repairs and improvements to the existing concrete
sidewalks, retaining walls, and beach access stairways located along Carlsbad Boulevard. The project consists of two major elements: Upper Sidewalk Improvements and Beach Access Stairway Replacements, along with some additional improvements.
Upper Sidewalk Improvements consists of replacing and widening the sidewalk by 2.5’, part of which removes the existing surface-mounted railing and replacing with side-mounted railing which will provide extra sidewalk walking width.
Beach Access Stairway Replacements will replace (4) existing elevated stairways and railings in the same configuration at each access location. The existing reinforced concrete pile will be used, and railing and handrails will be replaced to meet applicable codes and include downward lighting. This element will also replace (1) on-grade access stairway and railings at Tamarack Avenue within the existing footprint.
Additional Improvements will include replacing existing sandbags with short retaining wall extensions at the base of 3 stairways to control soil sloughing from the bluff from impacting the use of the stairs, install new under rail accent lighting at the elevated access platforms and Tamarack
Avenue on-grade access stairway, replace the existing sidewalk and railing around the beach shower along the upper sidewalk near the Tamarack Ave. restroom, and replace existing street light poles with in-kind and within the existing footprints.
We understand that the project will involve construction near or adjacent to native coastal bluff scrub and a historically significant comfort station (restroom). Based on the MND, the City of
Carlsbad is taking specific minimization, avoidance, and mitigation measures to prevent significant impacts to these natural and cultural resources. We request continued involvement in the project with the City of Carlsbad providing review of a monitoring program and notification for review of any changes in the project design plans.
.82:1547Ā/7;36893Ā0.*Ā-&(")#/(Ȁ''"!Ȁ$ &&Ȁ),",Ȁ+%(&./ $%'"!
Comment 3-1
Comment Letter #3
CSP supports the Beach Access Repairs project. We anticipate that these improvements will be a benefit to CSP such that the project improves public access and safety within the City of Carlsbad and to Carlsbad State Beach. We also appreciate the long history of working with the City of Carlsbad on projects that benefit both parties and are in the best interest of the public.
We look forward to working with you as the project moves forward through the process.
Sincerely,
Nicole Van Doren Acting District Superintendent
Cc’d Alexis Pettigrew, Sector Superintendent Darren Smith, Senior Environmental Scientist Carrie Boyle, Environmental Scientist Marya Ahmad, District Environmental Coordinator
.82:1547Ā/7;36893Ā0.*Ā-&(")#/(Ȁ''"!Ȁ$ &&Ȁ),",Ȁ+%(&./ $%'"!
Com.3-1 CONT.
RResponses to Comment Letter #3, California State Parks: Nicole Van Doren, June 14th, 2023
Comment 3-1: California State Parks (CSP) provided comments in support of the Project as the Project aims to
improve public access and safety in the City of Carlsbad and Carlsbad State Beach. CSP agrees
with the specific avoidance and minimization measures and mitigation measures outlined in the
IS/MND to reduce potential impacts to valuable natural and cultural resources. CSP requests
continued involvement in the Project and wishes to be notified of any changes to Project design
or monitoring program. Should Project parameters change in relation to CSP resources, the City
of Carlsbad shall notify CSP. The City of Carlsbad appreciates CSP involvement with the Project
and looks forward to continued coordination with CSP as the Project progresses.
wildlife.ca.gov
STATE OF CALIFORNIA • NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY Gavin Newson, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Charlton H. Bonham, Director
South Coast Region
3883 Ruffin Road | San Diego, CA 92123
wildlife.ca.gov
June 19, 2023
Izzak Mireles
Associate Planner
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Izzak.Mireles@carlsbad.ca.gov
Subject: Beach Access Repairs Project, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/MND), SCH #2023050505
Dear Izzak Mireles:
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received an Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) from the City of Carlsbad (City)
for the Beach Access Repairs Project (Project) pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on IS/MND. Based on our review of
the IS/MND and associated Biological Technical Report, we have found that the
Project is consistent with the requirements and conservation standards set forth
in the City’s Habitat Management Plan (HMP). We appreciate the City’s
partnership and efforts to ensure consistency with the HMP.
Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to
Alison Kalinowski, Environmental Scientist, by email at,
Alison.Kalinowski@wildlife.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
David Mayer
Environmental Program Manager
South Coast Region
+608/325Ā,5914671Ā.+'Ā#) )&+&$Ȁ)))!Ȁ"(& Ȁ(%-+Ȁ#%(+*%"%))!&Comment Letter #4
Comment 4-1
Izzak Mireles
City of Carlsbad
June 19, 2023
Page 2 of 2
ec: CDFW
Karen Drewe, San Diego – Karen.Drewe@wildlife.ca.gov
Cindy Hailey, San Diego – Cindy.Hailey@wildlife.ca.gov
Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse – State.Clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Jonathan Snyder – Jonathan_D_Snyder@fws.gov
City of Carlsbad
Rosanne Humphrey – Rosanne.Humphrey@carlsbadca.gov
References
VCS Environmental. December 2020. Biological Technical Report for the Beach
Access Repairs Project.
City of Carlsbad. May 2023. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Beach Access Repairs Project.
+608/325Ā,5914671Ā.+'Ā#) )&+&$Ȁ)))!Ȁ"(& Ȁ(%-+Ȁ#%(+*%"%))!&
RResponses to Comment Letter #4, California Department of Fish and Wildlife: David Mayer, June 19th, 2023
Comment 4-1: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) provided comment on the Project. CDFW’s
comment letter is in support of the Project and CDFW notes that the Project is consistent with
the requirements and conservation standards set forth in the City of Carlsbad’s Habitat
Management Plan. The City of Carlsbad is appreciative of CDFW’s engagement with the Project
and looks forward to continued coordination with CDFW.