HomeMy WebLinkAboutPUD 05-19; ADAMS STREET SUBDIVISION; Planned Unit Development - Residential (PUD)„...,,..
fp
*4.a."S
.,'.--'T=-,C
r-.4.9,.
11
,'CITY OF CARLSBAD
LAND USE REVIEW APPLICATION
1)APPLICATIONS APPLIED FOR:(CHECK BOXES)
(FOR (FOR
DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT
USE ONLY)_USE ONLY)
O Administrative Permit 0 Planned Industrial Permit
O Administrative Variance 0 Planning Commission Determination
O Coastal Development Permit 0 Precise Development Plan
O Conditional Use Permit 0 Redevelopment Permit
O Condominium Permit 0 Site Development Plan
uji\JAAdaviAEiEnvironmental Impact Assessment I Special Use Permit —Sae on-LT
O General Plan Amendment 0 Specific Plan
o Hillside Development Permit HOP (n--LaLl Tentative-Paw:al-Map
Obtain from Engineering Department
O Local Coastal Program Amendment 0 Tentative Tract Map
O Master Plan 0 Variance
ElNon-Residential Planned Development 0 Zone Change
oPlanned Development Permit pa)05_19 o List other applications not specified
2)ASSESSOR PARCEL NO(S).:206-200-01
3)PROJECT NAME:Adams Street 2 Unit Subdivision
4)BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:3 lot subdivision of 1.08 acre parcel:2 single family home lots and 1 open space lot
5)OWNER NAME (Print or Type)6)APPLICANT NAME (Print or Type)
Benjamin &Eunice Medina, David Graham Planning Systems
MAILING ADDRESS MAILING ADDRESS
PO Box 1766 1530 Faraday Ave #100
CITY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE CITY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE
Bonita, CA 91908 Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760) 931-0780
kiootri-h
EMAIL ADDRESS:EMAIL ADDRESS:31Yilas@planningsystems.net
I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
INFORMATION IS TRU AND CORRECT TO E BST ,.OF MY 0 R AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND
KNO .-II GE.A Ich--•ECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.' •i U a)A/0.1`)Vv\y„itiqt(-a ._.._.{Put.ASIGNATURE DATE SIGNATURE DAT
7)BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION Southeasterly 127'of Lot 5 &that portion of Lot 6 in Block D ofBella Vista, in City ofCarlsbad,
County ofSan Diego, State of California, Map No. 2152, Filed March 7,1929
NOTE:A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS BE FILED, MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 3:30 P.M.
A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING ONLY ONE APPLICATION BE FILED, MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 4:00 P.M.
Form 14 Rev.12/04 0 e vo51D---PAGE 1 OF 5
*I)
8)LOCATION OF PROJECT:Adams Street
STREET ADDRESS
ON THE South SIDE OF Adams Street
(NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, WEST)(NAME OF STREET)
BETWEEN Highland Drive AND Park Drive
(NAME OF STREET)(NAME OF STREET)
9)LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1
10)PROPOSED NUMBER OF LOTS 3 11)NUMBER OF EXISTING 0 12)PROPOSED NUMBER 2RESIDENTIAL UNITS OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS
13)TYPE OF SUBDIVISION MS 14)PROPOSED IND OFFICE/0 15)PROPOSED COMM 0SQUARE FOOTAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE
16)PERCENTAGE OF PROPOSED 17)PROPOSED INCREASE 20 18)PROPOSED SEWER 2PROJECTIN OPEN SPACE IN ADT USAGE IN EDU
19)GROSS SITE ACREAGE 1.08 20)EXISTING GENERAL RLM 21)PROPOSED GENERAL RLMPLANPLAN DESIGNATION
22)EXISTING ZONING R-1 '23)PROPOSED ZONING R-1 24)HABITAT IMPACTS Y /NIF YES, ASSIGN HMP #
25)IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR MEMBERS OF CITY
STAFF,PLANNING COMMISSIONERS,DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS OR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
TO INSPECT AND ENTER THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION.I/WE CONSENT
TO EN OSE
SIGNATURE
SEA—
FOR CITY USE ONLY 411tk As.le-ck
tt -Lec.S-
FEE COMPUTATION RECEIVED
APPLICATION TYPE FEE REQUIRED SD
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLAN N ;NC;DEPT
DATE STAMP APPLICATION RECEIVED
RECEIVED BY:
TOTAL FEE REQUIRED 5410(-4-0
Form 14 Rev.12/04 PAGE 2 OF 5
Don Neu -Adams Street Subdivision Page 1
From:"Paul Klukas-Carlsbad" <pklukas@planningsystems.net>
To:"Don Neu" <dneu@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>
Date:11/29/2005 6:49:17 AM
Subject:Adams Street Subdivision
Don:I am agent for the Adams St. PUD subdivision owned by Drs. Medina and Graham.This email is
to confirm our recent telephone conversation in which we agreed that the time clock for City review of the
completeness of the application would not begin until the date that Planning Systems submits a revised
set of plans.
The original application set was submitted on Nov.16.However it was brought to our attention that a
couple of engineering standards were not met by the plan, and thus we proceeded with an immediate
redesign of these areas.
Please proceed with City Staff review of the project on the date that we submit the revised set of plans.
Thanks for your patience on this matter.
Paul J. Klukas
PLANNING SYSTEMS
1530 Faraday Ave. #100
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(760) 931 -0780 ph
(760) 931-5744 fax
pklukas@planningsystems.net
tem.
%ore
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/EXPLANATION
PROJECT NAME:Adams Street 2 Unit Subdivision
APPLICANT NAME:Planning Systems
Please describe fully the proposed project by application type.Include any details
necessary to adequately explain the scope and/or operation of the proposed project.
You may also include any background information and supporting statements regarding
the reasons for,or appropriateness of,the application.Use an addendum sheet if
necessary.
Description/Explanation:
The proposed project involves a Tentative Parcel Map, Special Use Permit, Hillside
Development Permit,and Planned Development Permit to allow for the subdivision of a
single 1.08 acre parcel (206-200-01) located on Adams Street.The parcel will be
subdivided into three (3) separate lots.Lot 1 will house a two-story 4,923 square foot
custom home.Lot 2 will house a two-story 3,933 square foot custom home and Lot 3
will remain in open space.The parcel is currently zoned as One-Family Residential (R-
1 -15,000).The current General Plan designation is Low-Medium Density (RLM).No
change is proposed to either the zoning or general plan designation.
The parcel is currently undeveloped and contains both Coastal Sage Scrub and Non-
native Grassland.The site is located within Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP)
Zone 1 in the northwest quadrant ofthe City of Carlsbad. Surrounding properties include
single family development to the north and east, Agua Hedionda Lagoon to the south and
a vacant property to the west.
•
•
•
Project Description 10/96 Page 1 of 1
•
Now
EXPANDED
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM -PART I
CASE NO:
DATE:
BACKGROUND
1.CASE NAME:
Adams Street 2 Unit Subdivision
2.LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS:
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
3.CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER:
Planning Department Staff
(760) 602-4600
4.PROJECT LOCATION:
The project is located at the north side of Adams Street between Highland Drive and Park Drive
in the northwest quadrant of the City of Carlsbad.
5.PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS:
Planning Systems
1530 Faraday Ave Suite 100
Carlsbad, CA 92008
6.GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Residential Low Medium (RLM)
7.ZONING:
One —Family Residential (R-1)
8.OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements):
None known
C
9.PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
The proposed project involves a Tentative Parcel Map, Special Use Permit, Hillside Development
Permit, and Planned Development Permit to allow for the subdivision of a single 1.08 acre parcel
(206-200-01) located on Adams Street.The parcel will be subdivided into three (3) separate lots.
Lot 1 will house a two-story approximately 4,923 square foot custom home.Lot 2 will house a
two-story approximately 3,933 square foot custom home and Lot 3 will remain in open space.
The parcel is currently zoned as One-Family Residential (R-1 -15,000).The current General Plan
designation is Low-Medium Density (RLM).No change is proposed to either the zoning or
General Plan designation.
The parcel is currently undeveloped and contains both Coastal Sage Scrub and Annual Grassland
vegetation communities.The site is located within Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP)
Zone 1 in the northwest quadrant of the City of Carlsbad. Surrounding properties include single
family development to the north and east,Agua Hedionda Lagoon to the south and a vacant
property (Zoned R-1) to the west.
2 Rev. 07/26/02
Sow'vori.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
[7 Aesthetics n Geology/Soils nNoise
TiAgricultural Resources 7 Hazards/Hazardous Materials 7 Population and Housing
M Air Quality Fl Hydrology/Water Quality 7 Public Services
MBiological Resources Land Use and Planning 7 Recreation
7 Cultural Resources n Mineral Resources Transportation/Circulation
Mandatory Findings of
Significance 7 Utilities &Service Systems
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3,Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental
Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment.The Environmental
Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist.This checklist identifies any physical,
biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information
to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or
to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
•A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported
by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question.A "No Impact"answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved.A "No Impact"answer should be explained when there is no source
document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
•"Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not
significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
•"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated"applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact."
The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
•"Potentially Significant Impact"is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly
adverse.
3 Rev. 07/26/02
'44'41
tome
•Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the
environment, but all potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b)have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,and none of the circumstances requiring a
supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project,then no additional environmental
document is required.
•When "Potentially Significant Impact"is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIRifthesignificant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable
standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations"has been made
pursuant to that earlier EIR.
•A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or
any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment.
•If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there
are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant,and those mitigation
measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review.In this case, the appropriate "Potentially
Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration
may be prepared.
•An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact"is checked, and including but not limited to
the following circumstances:(1)the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or
mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation
measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant;(2)a "Statement of Overriding
Considerations"for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR;(3)
proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the
EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect,
or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a
level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION.Particular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant.
4 Rev. 07/03/02
Ce .wise
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).Potentially
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.)Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
I.AESTHETICS -Would the project:
a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b)Substantially damage scenic resources, including but
not limited to,trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State scenic highway?
c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d)Create a new source of substantial light and glare,0which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
II.AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES -(In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.)Would
the project:
a)Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural
use?
b)Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or 111aWilliamson Act contract?
c)Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
III.AIR QUALITY -(Where available,the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following determinations.)Would the
project:
a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
5 Rev. 07/03/02
1%re
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).Potentially!
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.)Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
c)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
1
-
1 0 1
-
1any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
1
-
1concentrations?
e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
1
-
1numberofpeople?
IV.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a)Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or
1
-
1throughhabitatmodifications,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
ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c)Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh,
vernal pool,coastal,etc.)through direct removal,
filing, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d)Interfere substantially with the movement of any
1
-
1 1
-
1native 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?
6 Rev. 07/03/02
Sw.e.e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).Potentially
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.)Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
g)Impact tributary areas that are environmentally 7 7 7sensitive?
V.CULTURAL RESOURCES —Would the project:
a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the F
-
1 7significanceofahistoricalresourceasdefinedin
§15064.5?
b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi-7 Z 7canceofanarcheologicalresourcepursuantto
§15064.5?
c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi-7cal resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d)Disturb any human remains, including those interred 7 Floutsideofformal cemeteries?
VI.GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the project:
a)Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury or
death involving:
i.Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as 7 7 Z 1
-
1delineatedonthemostrecentAlquist-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?FT
iii.Seismic-related ground failure, including 7 0 Z riliquefaction?
iv.Landslides?0 7 7
b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of 0 0 Z 7topsoil?
c)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,n 11 Z 0orthatwouldbecomeunstableasaresultofthe
project,and potentially result in on-or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse?
7 Rev. 07/03/02
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).Potentially
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.)Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
d)Be located on expansive soils,as defined in Table 18 [El-1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the [2]
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
VII.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -
Would the project:
a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport,use,or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b)Create a significant hazard to the public or
1
-
1environmentthroughreasonablyforeseeableupset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials,substances,or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d)Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
environment?
e)For a project within an airport land use plan,or
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
g)Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
1
-
1anadoptedemergencyresponseplanoremergency
evacuation plan?
8 Rev. 07/03/02
Near
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).Potentially
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.)Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
h)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss,injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
VIII.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -Would the
project:
a)Violate any water quality standards or waste
1
-
1discharge requirements?
b)Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with ground water recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local ground water table
level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c)Impacts to groundwater quality?
d)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern ofthe
1
-
1siteorarea,including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-
site?
e)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern ofthe
site or area,including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the flow rate or amount (volume)of surface runoff in
a manner, which would result in flooding on-or off-
site?
0 Create or contribute runoff water,which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources ofpolluted runoff?
g)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
h)Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation
map?
9 Rev. 07/03/02
,.....,.....".,
%my'NIS
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).Potentially
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.)Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
i)Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures,ri 0 C Elwhich would impede or redirect flood flows?
j)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of [1 n 0 Elossinjuryordeathinvolvingflooding,including
flooding as a result of the failure ofa levee or dam?
k)Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?n n F E
1)Increased erosion (sediment)into receiving surface
1
-
1 Z ri riwaters.
m)Increased pollutant discharges (e.g.,heavy metals,
1-1
_Z 17pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics,
nutrients,oxygen-demanding substances and trash)
into receiving surface waters or other alteration of
receiving surface water quality (e.g.,temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
n)Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or pi Z I
-
1wetland waters) during or following construction?
o)Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired 7 Z 7water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section
303(d) list?
p)The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater 7 7receiving water quality objectives or degradation of
beneficial uses?
IX.LANDUSE AND PLANNING -Would the project:
a)Physically divide an established community?ri Z 7
b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or 7 17 1
-7regulationofanagencywith jurisdiction over the
project (including but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan,local coastal program,or zoning
ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c)Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation 0plan or natural community conservation plan?
_
X.MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 0 0 0 Zresource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State?
10 Rev. 07/03/02
tie*--.,....,
Ihimir N.'S
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).Potentially
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.)Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
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?
XI.NOISE -Would the project result in:
a)Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels 7 Zin excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b)Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive 7 7groundbournevibrationorgroundbournenoise
levels?
c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise Zlevelsintheprojectvicinityabovelevelsexisting
without the project?
d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in Z 7ambientnoiselevelsintheprojectvicinityabove
levels existing without the project?
e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
_
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
XI!.POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the project:
a)Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example,by proposing new homes and
businesses)or indirectly (for example,through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b)Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c)Displace substantial numbers ofpeople, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
11 Rev. 07/03/02
_-
%toe
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).Potentially
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.)Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XIII.PUBLIC SERVICES
a)Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered government facilities,a
need for new or physically altered government
facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i)Fire protection?
ii)Police protection?
iii)Schools?
iv)Parks?
v)Other public facilities?
XIV.RECREATION
a)Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b)Does the project include recreational facilities or
1
-
1 n n [ZIrequire the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities,which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
XV.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -Would the project:
a)Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to
capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at
intersections)?
b)Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways?
12 Rev. 07/03/02
CNord
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).Potentially
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.)Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
c)Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including 7 Z 0eitheranincreaseintrafficlevelsorachangein
_
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d)Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature LI 7 1
-7(e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e)Result in inadequate emergency access?7 7
f)Result in insufficient parking capacity?7 7 Fl
g)Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs 7 7supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn-
outs, bicycle racks)?
XVI.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS -Would the
project:
a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the 7 Z 0applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?____
b)Require or result in the construction of new water or 7wastewatertreatmentfacilitiesorexpansionof
existing facilities,the construction of which would
cause significant environmental effects?
c)Require or result in the construction of new storm 7 7 7waterdrainagefacilitiesorexpansionofexisting
facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the 7 TI Z 7projectfrom existing entitlements and resources,or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e)Result in a determination by the wastewater C Fl 7treatmentprovider,which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
f)Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
1
-7 n Flcapacitytoaccommodatetheproject's solid waste
disposal needs?
g)Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and 7 0 Flregulations related to solid waste?
13 Rev. 07/03/02
%se '.bare
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).Potentially
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.)Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment,substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b)Does the project have impacts that are individually F1limited,but cumulatively considerable?("Cumula-
tively considerable"means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,the
effects of other current projects,and the effects of
probable future projects?)
c)Does the project have environmental effects,which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
14 Rev. 07/03/02
opp..
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The following is a technical explanation for each answer provided in the checklist provided on the
previous pages.After each question is posed,a summary of the existing conditions is presented, followed
by an analysis of potential project impacts, the finding and appropriate factual justification.In cases
where the finding is "Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated", the finding is followed
by a description ofthe mitigation measures that would reduce the impact to below a level of significance.
Information sources are cited for each discussion.
I.AESTHETICS -Would the project:
a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Existing Condition:The subject is located within the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Scenic Preservation
Overlay Zone.A view to the site exists from across Agua Hedionda Lagoon.Additionally,site lines
from the north cross the site on their way to the lagoon.
Environmental Evaluation:The subject project will be visible primarily from motorists on Adams
Street and from persons viewing the site from the south across Agua Hedionda Lagoon.Views from the
north will be protected by limiting building heights on the subdivision.No height shall be greater than
the grade ofthe surface ofAdams Street.This height is consistent with the height of other buildings in
the area.
Finding:Less than significant impact —The proposed project will not significantly impact the
viewshed from either the surrounding housing, from Adams Street or from across Agua Hedionda
Lagoon.Temporary impacts associated with construction of the project will not be significant.The
project will conform to the City of Carlsbad Scenic Preservation Overlay Corridor Guidelines for
construction and setbacks.Therefore, the project will not have a substantially adverse impact on any
scenic vista.
b)Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
Existing condition:No trees or rock outcroppings will be impacted by the proposed project.No
buildings, including historic buildings,are located in or adjacent to the site.The area of proposed impact
is not located within the viewshed of a State scenic highway or any State highway that is designated by
CalTrans as eligible for listing as a scenic highway.
Environmental Evaluation:Since no trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings, and no State
scenic highways are in the vicinity of the proposed project, no significant impact to such resources is
anticipated.
Finding:No impact -The site is not within the viewshed ofa state scenic highway or any state
highway that is designated by CalTrans as eligible for listing.Please also refer to the preceding response.
c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
15 Rev. 07/03/02
444.0
Existing condition:The existing visual character of the site is that of an undeveloped parcel,
surrounded by additional undeveloped parcels and single family homes.Annual non-native grassland and
coastal sage scrub vegetation habitats occur onsite.
Environmental Evaluation:Permanent visual impacts ofthe proposed project will involve the
construction of two houses.Temporary impacts associated with construction will be short-term and not
significant.Nearly half of the proposed project site will remain in open space.Therefore, it is concluded
that the project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings.
Finding:Less than significant impact —Please also refer to response I(a), above.
d)Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Existing condition:The subject area contains no lights and produces no glare at the present time.
Environmental Evaluation:The proposed project will change the appearance ofthe subject site from
an undeveloped parcel to a developed site with two custom homes.Light and glare from the proposed
project is anticipated to be not significantly greater than that projected from other uses in the surrounding
area.The proposed development modifications will involve an increase in urban appearance, but not
dissimilar from the existing uses along Adams Street.This increase should not however, result in
significant new sources of light and/or glare, and will not significantly impact overall views to and from
the site. The project will submit a lighting plan to the Planning Department for review for consistency
with City policies as part ofthe approval process.
Finding:Less than significant impact —It is concluded that the proposed project will not result in a
new source ofsubstantial light and glare and will not significantly affect day or nighttime views in the
area.
II.AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Existing condition:The subject site is not designated as "Farmland of Local Importance" on the
"California Department ofConservation —San Diego County Important Farmland" exhibit dated
September, 2002.The site is currently undeveloped and no agriculture is (or has ever been) practiced on
the subject site.
Environmental Evaluation:The area which would be impacted by the proposed project is not
designated as "Farmland of Local Importance" on the "California Department of Conservation —San
Diego County Important Farmland" exhibit dated September, 2002.The property is not encumbered by a
Williamson Act contract.
Finding:No impact —The proposed project will not convert prime farmland to non-agricultural
uses. The site is currently undeveloped and no farming takes place on the subject site.
b)Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a Williamson Act contract?
16 Rev. 07/03/02
%le
Existing condition:The subject project is located on property that is zoned One —Family Residential
(R-1).No change is proposed.No agricultural operations are presently conducted in the area ofthe
proposed project improvements.The subject property is not encumbered by a Williamson Act contract.
Environmental Evaluation:The property is not zoned for agricultural uses, and is not encumbered by
a Williamson Act contract.
Finding:No impact —Please refer to the preceding response. The site is on property not
established for agricultural uses.No effect on agricultural uses will result from implementation of the
project.The property is not zoned for agricultural uses, and no Williamson Act contract encumbers the
property.
c)Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
Existing condition:The subject site is currently undeveloped and no farmland presently exists in the
area for which the proposed projects urban improvements are proposed.
Environmental Evaluation:The subject property does not contain prime farmland, unique farmland
or farmland of statewide importance.Farming operations in the City of Carlsbad or State of California
would not be affected through implementation ofthe proposed plan amendments.
Finding:No impact -The proposed project will not affect any existing or identified farmland, nor
will it cause changes to any factors, such as water supply, access, or drainage that would affect any active
agricultural use.As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated with respect to agricultural resources.
III.AIR QUALITY -Would the project:
a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Existing condition:The existing use of the site is an undeveloped parcel. The site produces no
significant air pollution at this time.
The project area has a warm-summer Mediterranean climate characterized by warm, dry summers and
mild, wet winters.The dominant meteorological feature affecting the region is the Pacific High Pressure
Zone, which produces prevailing winds from the west to northwest.These winds tend to blow pollutants
away from the coast toward the inland areas.Consequently, air quality near the coast is generally better
than that which occurs at the base ofthe coastal mountain range.
Fluctuations in the strength and pattern of winds from the Pacific High Pressure Zone interacting with the
daily local cycle produce periodic temperature inversions that influence the dispersal or containment of
air pollutants in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB).
The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA)was enacted in 1970 and amended in 1977 and 1990 for the purposes
of protecting and enhancing the quality of the nation's air resources to benefit the public's health, welfare
and productivity.In 1971, in order to achieve the purposes of the CAA, the EPA developed primary and
secondary national ambient air quality standards.Six pollutants ofprimary concern were designated;
ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead and suspended particulates.A proposed
project's air quality impacts must be addressed relative to compliance with the standards adopted pursuant
to these pollutants.
17 Rev. 07/03/02
406.%
*iture
The proposed project is located in the northwestern portion of the SDAB and will be required to comply
with all San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) Rules and Regulations.Air emissions will be
produced during construction, however this construction period will be temporary in nature.
The SDAB is a federal and state non-attainment area for ozone (03). and a state non-attainment area for
respirable particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10). The applicable
attainment plan for these criteria pollutants is the Regional Air Quality Strategy, which is prepared and
administered by the San Diego APCD.
Environmental Evaluation:Short-term air quality impacts during construction of the 1.08 acre
project would occur from heavy equipment exhaust emissions, construction-related trips by workers,
delivery trucks, and material hauling trucks, and from associated fugitive dust generation. Heavy
construction equipment is usually diesel-powered. In general, emissions from diesel-powered equipment
contain more nitrogen oxide compounds (NOx), sulfur oxide compounds (SOx), and PM10. and less
carbon monoxide (CO) and reactive organic compounds (ROCs), than emissions from gasoline-powered
engines.NOx compounds and ROCs are precursors to ozone formation.
Approximately 1,656 cubic yards of finish grading will result from the proposed project.466 cubic yardsof fill will be exported from the site.Nonetheless, construction is anticipated to involve equipment such
as tractors, scrapers, backhoes, cranes, graders, dump and concrete trucks, and miscellaneous
tractor-trailer delivery trucks.The type of equipment that may be found at any one time at the site during
the construction period will vary.The construction operation is anticipated to extend 6 to 10 months in
duration, although heavy machinery will not be in operation during this entire period.Short term sourcesofconstruction-related air emissions include (a) fugitive dust from grading activities, (b) construction
exhaust, and (c) construction related by worker commute, delivery trucks, and material-hauling trucks.
The APCD does not have specific significance thresholds for air pollutants generated during construction.
However, the APCD does specify Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) Trigger Levels for review of new
stationary sources. Although these trigger levels are specified for stationary sources, they are used here to
assess the potential impacts due to air emissions during project construction. The AQIA construction
Trigger Levels are defined as:
NOx 250 pounds per day
SOx 250 pounds per day
CO 550 pounds per day
PM10 100 pounds per day
No AQIA Trigger Levels specified for ROCs have been adopted.If anticipated project emissions exceed
any of these Trigger Levels,a more detailed Air Quality Impact Analysis may be required by the APCD.
For this evaluation, project construction air emissions were estimated using the California Air Resources
Board Urbemis7G version 3.2 air emission estimation program.
The Urbemis7G program does not include emission factors for SOx compounds. The equipment emission
factors used in Urbemis7G are the same as those found in the South Coast Air Quality Management
District CEQA Air Quality Handbook, and the Handbook does include emission factors for SOx
compounds.A comparison of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook NOx and SOx compound emission
factors reveals that the SOx emission factors are consistently less than the corresponding NOx emission
factors for the same types of equipment. Therefore, it can be concluded that the total SOx emissions from
a project will be less than the total NOx emissions from that project.
18 Rev. 07/03/02
itrie
The San Diego APCD Trigger Levels for NOx and SOx compounds are the same (250 pounds per day).
Consequently, for this assessment it can be concluded that if the total NOx emissions projected by
Urbemis7G are less than the AQIA Trigger Levels, then the total SOx emissions will also be below the
Trigger Levels.
As indicated, the amount and types of equipment on-site at any one time during the construction periodwillvary.This assessment conservatively assumes that all of the projected equipment could be working
on-site simultaneously. Under this assumption, the maximum projected daily air emissions during
construction would be:
NOx 158 pounds per day
SOx <158 pounds per day
CO 92 pounds per day
PM10 26 pounds per day
Regarding vehicular emissions from the proposed development, the air quality analyses identify motor
vehicles as the primary source of emissions associated with development projects such as the proposed
project.The long-term vehicular trips to and from the project may contribute significant amounts of air
pollutant emissions.
At buildout, the proposed project will consist of 2 single family homes, with projected traffic generation
as follows:
Land Use ADT
2 single family homes 20 ADT
Finding:Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated —The project is located within a
basin that has a nonattainment status and the project would contribute pollutants, thereby having a
cumulatively significant air quality impact unless mitigation measures are adopted.Controls for
construction equipment and procedures such as dust control during construction are regulated by the Air
Pollution Control District (ACPD).The project is required to comply with all APCD Rules and
Regulations.All project construction is required to incorporate best management practices to reduce dust
and air pollution impacts.Compliance with these mitigation measures will result in less than significant
impacts to the applicable air quality plan.
b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
Existing condition:The property is in a non-attainment status area, and the proposed project would
contribute additional pollution emissions.The site is currently undeveloped and produces no significant
pollution at this time.
Environmental Evaluation:Please refer to the preceding technical evaluation in Section III(a).
Finding:Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated -Emission controls for construction
equipment and procedures such as dust control during construction are regulated by the Air Pollution
Control District (ACPD).The project is required to comply with all APCD Rules and Regulations.Any
air emissions produced during construction would be temporary.Compliance with these mitigation
measures will result in less than significant impacts to the air quality standards.
19 Rev. 07/03/02
00".
c)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air qualitystandard?
Existing condition:The property is in a non-attainment status area, and the proposed project would
contribute additional pollution emissions.The site is currently undeveloped and produces no significant
pollution at this time.
Environmental Evaluation:Please refer to the technical evaluation in Section III(a).The project
would contribute to pollution emissions however it is consistent with the City of Carlsbad General Plan,the City of Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, and the City of Carlsbad Master Environmental Impact Report(MEIR 93-01).
Finding:Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated -Emission controls for construction
equipment and procedures such as dust control during construction are regulated by the Air Pollution
Control District (ACPD).The project is required to comply with all APCD Rules and Regulations.Any
air emissions produced during construction would be temporary.Compliance with these mitigation
measures will result in less than significant impacts to the air quality standards.
d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Existing condition:No sensitive air quality receptors are located near the subject site.
Environmental Evaluation:Please refer to evaluation at III(a).The project would not alter wind
patterns, moisture levels or temperatures in the area.
Finding:No impact —No sensitive receptors are located in the area and thus, no exposure to
substantial pollution concentrations will result from implementation ofthe proposed project.
e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Existing condition:The site is currently undeveloped and does not contain objectionable odors under
the existing condition.
Environmental Evaluation:Urban development ofa two single family homes has not been shown to
result in the creation of objectionable odors.There is no evidence that the proposed project will be any
different than those previously analyzed.
Finding:No Impact —No significant odors are anticipated from the proposed project.
IV.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a)Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Existing condition:The subject site is located wholly within an area that has never been developed
although regular vegetation thinning for fire break has taken place.The site contains annual non-native
grassland and coastal sage scrub.
20 Rev. 07/03/02
'4klioi ....0
Environmental Evaluation:The project site is an undeveloped parcel.A biological assessment of the
site has been prepared by Planning Systems, dated 11/14/05.Biological resources on the site consist of
annual non-native grassland and coastal sage scrub.Impacts to biological resources resulting from
implementation ofthe project are as follows:
Plant Community Total impacted Preserved HMP Required
Acres Acres Acres Mitigation Mitigation
Ratio Acres
Coastal sage scrub 0.84 0.27 0.56 2:1 0.54
Non-native grassland 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.5:1 0.14 (Fee)
Disturbed 0.02 0.02 Fee Fee Fee
Open Water/Beach 0.01 0.00 0.01 --0.00
TOTAL 1.15 0.57 0.57 0.68
Finding:Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated -Direct impacts to sensitive
vegetation as defined in the City ofCarlsbad Habitat Management Plan will occur through
implementation ofthe subject project as identified above.Mitigation for such impacts is indicated as
follows:
Plant Community Impacted I-IMP Mitigation Required On-site
Acres Ratio Mitigation Mitigation
Coastal sage scrub 0.27 2:1 0.54 0.56
Non-native grassland 0.28 0.5:1 0.14 (Fee)0.00
Disturbed 0.02 Fee Fee 0.00
Open Water/Beach 0.00 --0.00 0.01
Developed --Fee Fee 0.55
TOTAL 0.57 0.68 1.12
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?
Existing condition:Please refer to explanation of existing condition Section IV(a).No impacts to
riparian, aquatic or wetland habitats exist onsite or will result from implementation of the proposed
project.
Environmental Evaluation:No impacts to wetlands vegetation would result from implementation of
the project.
Finding:No Impact -No direct impacts to sensitive wetland, riparian or aquatic vegetation will
occur through implementation of the subject project.HMP compliance with regard to CSS impacts and
mitigation is required pursuant to City of Carlsbad regulations.
c)Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Existing condition:No direct filling, hydrological interruption or other impacts to "waters of the
U.S."are anticipated through implementation of the subject project.
21 Rev. 07/03/02
%awe Nom"
Environmental Evaluation:No impact to wetlands or "waters" is anticipated from the project.
Finding:No impact -The project will be developed in an area that does not contain any federally
protected wetlands or "waters"as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
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?
Existing condition:The subject site is currently an undeveloped parcel.A biological assessment of
the site has been prepared by Planning Systems, dated 11/14/05.
Environmental Evaluation:Construction ofthe proposed project is not expected to significantly
impede local wildlife movement or migratory fish or wildlife movement because the subject area has not
been identified as a connectivity link or Core Area to be preserved in the Carlsbad Habitat Management
Plan.
The site is not identified as a Hardline Conservation Area in the HMP (Figs. D-5, D-6).The site situated
within LFMP Zone 1.
Finding:Less than significant impact -The subject property is not expected to impact any native
resident, migratory fish, or wildlife species.
e)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Existing condition:The City of Carlsbad has no adopted tree preservation policy or ordinance which
would affect the subject project.
Environmental Evaluation:The subject project will not impact trees or other biological resources
protected by policy or ordinance except as otherwise described in response IV(a) and IV(c) above.No
trees exist on the subject site.
Finding:No impact —No tree preservation impacts will result from implementation of the project.
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Existing condition:The City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the
City of Carlsbad identifies open space Core # 4 to the south of the subject property, and identifies the
proposed project site as containing no native vegetation worthy of permanent conservation.The HMP
designates a natural preserve system and provides a regulatory framework for determining impacts and
assigning mitigation.No other local, regional or state habitat conservation plans specific to this site
encumber the property.
Environmental Evaluation:Table 11 (P. D-113)ofthe HMP identifies mitigation ratios for impacts
to HMP habitats.With regard to habitats on the subject property, these mitigation ratios are identified in
the HMP as follows:
Plant HMP Note
Community Mitigation
22 Rev. 07/03/02
Aim
Noe''NO/
Ratio
Coastal sage 2:1 Group C.Maximum avoidance and onsite conservation of Group C
scrub habitat is encouraged.
Annual 0.5:1 Group E.Offsite mitigation for habitat in this group which is not
grassland conserved or mitigated onsite shall pay a per acre in-lieu mitigation
fee to be determined by the City council.
Disturbed Fee Group F.Offsite mitigation for habitat in this group which is not
conserved or mitigated onsite shall pay a per acre in-lieu mitigation
fee to be determined by the City Council.
Plant Mitigation Compliance Onsite Offsite
Community Mitigation Mitigation
Required
Coastal sage The project will impact 0.27 acre (32%)ofthe 0.56 acre CSS None
scrub .84 acres of CSS onsite (0.25 acre permanent (preserved)
impacts, and 0.02 acre temporary impacts).
Impacts are a result of street, pad, yard, and
path creation.Approximately 0.56 acre
(69%)ofthe CSS onsite will be preserved.
This project exceeds the 2:1 I-IMP mitigation
ratio, providing an additional 0.02 acre of
mitigation,a ratio of 1.04:1.
Non-native 100% (0.28 acres)of the 0.28 acres of NNG None 0.14 acres
grassland onsite will be impacted through mitigated through
implementation of the proposed project (0.27 payment of in-
acre are permanent and 0.01 acre temporary lieu fee.
impacts). In-lieu payment for mitigation of
these impacts is required.
Disturbed 0.02 acres of impacts proposed.In-lieu None 0.02 acres
payment for mitigation ofthese impacts is mitigated through
required.payment of in-
lieu fee.
Finding:Potentially significant impact unless mitigation incorporated -The proposed project can
be found to be consistent with the I-IMP if mitigation measures are incorporated to address the above
required mitigation.
g)Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive?
Existing condition:Please refer to evaluation in response to Section IV(a).
Environmental Evaluation:Please refer to evaluation in response to Section IV(a).
Finding:No impact -Please refer to response IV(a) and IV(b) above.
V.CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance ofa historical resource as defined in
§1 5064.5?
23 Rev. 07/03/02
Nwier s.twor
Existing condition:The subject project will be developed on an undeveloped parcel.No historical
resources are known to exist on the subject site.
Environmental Evaluation:No impacts to historical resources are expected to result from
implementation of the proposed project.The site is not identified as having known archeologically
sensitive areas according to MEIR 93-01, map 5.8-2.
Finding:No impact —No historical resources have been identified on the site or within the vicinityofthe project; and therefore no impacts to historical resources will result from construction of the project.
b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
Existing condition:The property involved in the proposed project is an undeveloped parcel.The site
is not identified as having known archeologically sensitive areas according to MEIR 93-01, map 5.8-2.
Environmental Evaluation:A review of existing cultural resources in the area ofthe subject project
indicates that no impact to cultural resources will result from implementation of the subject project.No
impacts to significant archaeological resources will result from implementation ofthe proposed project.
Finding:Less than significant impact —The project will not cause substantial adverse changes in
the significance of archaeological resources pursuant to §15064.5.
c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
Existing condition:The subject site is an undeveloped parcel located in an area geologically
characterized by one soil type as occurring on the property.Marina loamy coarse sand comprises the soilofthe site.The surface layer is coarse sand about 10 inches thick, the subsoil is loamy coarse sand about
47 inches thick, and the substratum is coarse sand.
Environmental Evaluation:The finish grading associated with development ofthe project will
impact a relatively small amount of upper level soil, which is unlikely to contain fossil finds.
Finding:Less than significant impact —The relatively minor amount ofexcavation required for the
project results in the conclusion that the potential for paleontological resource impacts are less than
significant.
d)Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Existing condition:No record exists which would indicate the likelihood that human remains are
interred or would be expected to be encountered during construction ofthe proposed project.
Environmental Evaluation:The proposed project is not anticipated to impact any known human
remains.
Finding:No impact -No human burials or remains are known to exist in the location of the subject
project.
VI.GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the project:
24 Rev. 07/03/02
a)Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss,injury or death involving:
i.Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Friolo 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.
Existing condition:The project area is situated in the western portion of the Peninsular Ranges
geomorphic province of southern California.This geomorphic province encompasses an area that extends
125 miles from the Transverse Ranges and the Los Angeles Basin, south to the Mexican border, and
beyond another 775 miles to the southern tip of Baja California.The westernmost portion of the province
in San Diego County, in which the site is located, generally consists of Upper Cretaceous, Tertiary and
Quaternary age sedimentary rocks.
The most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the north
San Diego County area, indicates that the project is considered to be in a seismically active area, as is
most of southern California.This map however, indicates that the subject site is not underlain by known
active faults, nor is there evidence of ground displacement in the area during the last 11,000 years.
The Rose Canyon fault zone is the closest known fault, which is the onshore portion of an extensive fault
zone that includes the Offshore Zone ofDeformation and the Newport-Inglewood fault to the north ofthe
subject site.This fault zone, located approximately 6.2 miles westerly ofthe subject site, is made of
predominately right-lateral strike-slip faults that extend south-southeast through the San Diego
metropolitan area.The zone extends offshore at La Jolla, and continues north-northwest generally
parallel to the coastline.Portions ofthe Rose Canyon fault zone in the San Diego area have been
recognized by the State Geologist to be considered active.
Additionally,the Julian and Temecula segments ofthe Elsinore fault zone, about 24 miles to the northeast
of the subject site are also referenced in the Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Environmental Evaluation:The closest fault is located approximately seven miles westerly ofthe
site.The Elsinore fault zone is located approximately 24 miles east ofthe site, and the Coronado Bank
fault is located approximately 22 miles west of the site.The potential for rupture resulting from
earthquake is considered to be low.The subject site is not within a fault-rupture hazard zone as indexed
in the Division ofMines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Because of the lack of known active faults on the site, the potential for surface rupture at the site is
considered low.The seismic hazard most likely to impact the site is ground shaking resulting from an
earthquake on one ofthe active regional faults discussed above.
Finding:Less than significant impact -The project site is not within a fault-rupture hazard zone as
determined in the geotechnical report, and as indexed in the Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42; therefore the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects.
ii.Strong seismic ground shaking?
Existing condition:Southern California is recognized as a seismically-active area.As indicated in
the response to Item VI(a)(i), the Rose Canyon fault zone is the closest known fault, located
25 Rev. 07/03/02
14.4e
approximately 6.2 miles westerly ofthe subject site.This fault is made of predominately right-lateral
strike-slip faults that extend south-southeast through the San Diego metropolitan area.The second-closest
active area of potential ground motion is the Julian and Temecula segments of the Elsinore fault zone.No
other known active faults are located within the vicinity ofthe project.
The most significant seismic event likely to affect the proposed facilities would be a maximum moment
magnitude 7.2 earthquake along the Rose Canyon fault zone, in which the horizontal peak ground
acceleration has a 10%probability of exceedance in 50 years is 0.40g (40%of the acceleration of
gravity).
Environmental Evaluation:The project site will likely be subject to ground shaking in response toeitheralocal moderate or more distant large-magnitude earthquake. Seismic risk at the site is comparable
to the risk for the San Diego area in general.The closest source to the site for ground motion, and the
source that would produce the greatest ground acceleration at the site, is the Del Mar segment of the Rose
Canyon/Newport-Inglewood fault zone, about 6.2 miles west, and potentially the Julian and Temecula
segments ofthe Elsinore fault zone, about 24 miles to the northeast of the project site.Project design will
meet or exceed existing earthquake design standards.
Finding:Less than significant impact —Earthquake faults exist within southern California,
including three fault zones within 24 miles ofthe site.Historical records have indicated however, that theriskofstrong seismic ground shaking of the project site is minimal,and thus is considered a less than
significant impact.
iii.Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Existing condition:Liquefaction of soils with minimal cohesion can be caused by strong vibratory
motion due to earthquakes.Research indicates that loose granular soils and silts that are saturated by a
relatively shallow groundwater table are most susceptible to liquefaction.The subject site is an
undeveloped parcel located in an area geologically characterized by one soil type as occurring on the
property.Marina loamy coarse sand comprises the soil of the site.The surface layer is coarse sand about
10 inches thick, the subsoil is loamy coarse sand about 47 inches thick, and the substratum is coarse sand.
Environmental Evaluation:Liquefaction is a not concern on the subject site.Based on the result of
subsurface exploration, the site is underlain by Santiago Formation, which is characterized by very stiff to
hard siltstone,stiff to hard claystone, and very dense silty very fine sand. Due to the lack of near-surface
groundwater table and the underlying very dense formational soils, the potential for liquefaction is
considered to be low.The compacted fill is considered suitable for receiving additional fill or structures
following partial removal and recompaction.
Finding:Less than significant impact —The potential for liquefaction or seismically induced
settlement in the vicinity of the proposed improvements is considered to be very low due to the nature of
the underlying soil formation and the lack of groundwater near the surface.
iv.Landslides?
Existing condition:No landslides have been identified as having the potential to damage or affect the
proposed project facilities.No evidence of landsliding was observed at the site during site reconnaissance
or during the review of historic aerial photos of the site.
Environmental Evaluation:No landslides are anticipated to affect the proposed project development
improvements.
26 Rev. 07/03/02
Finding:No impact —No landslides are anticipated to affect the proposed project.
b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Existing condition:The subject property is an undeveloped parcel.
Environmental Evaluation:During the finish grading, the exposure of soils would lead to an
increased chance for the erosion of soils from the site. Such grading will follow best management
practices for the control of erosion, such as straw bale or sandbag barriers, silt fences, slope roughening,
and outlet protection in exposed areas.Finished grades will be promptly hydroseeded or otherwise
protected as required per the adopted City Grading Ordinance.If necessary, temporary slope cover such
as jute matting or mulch will be applied to newly graded slopes to reduce the impact to soil erosion or the
loss oftopsoil to a level of less than significant.
Finding:Less than significant impact —It is concluded that impacts to soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil will be less than significant, because the project is required to comply with the erosion control
requirements ofthe City of Carlsbad grading ordinance.
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?
Existing condition:Please refer to existing condition VI(a)(i, ii,and iii).
Environmental Evaluation:Please refer to evaluation VI(a)(i, ii, and iii).
Finding:Less than significant impact —Please refer to response VI(a)(i, ii,and iii).
d)Be located on expansive soils,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1997), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Existing condition:The subject site is an undeveloped parcel located in an area geologically
characterized by one soil type as occurring on the property.Marina loamy coarse sand comprises the soilofthe site.The surface layer is coarse sand about 10 inches thick, the subsoil is loamy coarse sand about
47 inches thick, and the substratum is coarse sand.
Environmental Evaluation:Table 18-1 -B ofthe Uniform Building Code identifies the Marina loamy
coarse sand as having "medium" expansion potential. The soil should be prepared and compacted as
directed in a geotechnical investigation, and footings /slabs for all buildings should be constructed as
directed inthis report.
Finding:Less than significant impact —As a result of proper grading, compaction and foundation
work, the project will not be subject to adverse soil expansion tendencies.
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?
Existing condition:Sewers are available for the proposed project.
27 Rev. 07/03/02
Environmental Evaluation:The proposed project will utilize access to the sewage trunk line which
runs along the southern edge of the property.As a result, no septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal system facilities are proposed.
Finding:No impact —No septic tanks or alternative sewage disposal systems are included in the
project description.
VII.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -Would the project:
a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use,or disposal of hazardous materials?
Existing condition:During construction of the proposed project, construction materials such as
petroleum projects, paint, oils and solvents will be transported and used on the site.Upon completion of
construction ofthe project, some use of hazardous cleaning products on the site may occur.Other than
during this construction phase, the project will not routinely utilize hazardous substances or materials.
Environmental Evaluation:There is no evidence of chemical surface staining, or hazardous
materials/waste and/or petroleum contamination on the site.
Construction of the proposed project will involve operation of heavy machinery, which utilize petroleum
products, and paint, oils and solvents.No permanent use of such hazardous materials is anticipated
except for some cleaning products use associated with normal business operations.All transport,
handling, use, and disposal of any cleaning substances will comply with all federal,state, and local laws
regulating the management and use of such materials.
Finding:Less than significant impact —It is concluded that the routine amount of hazardous
materials utilized during the construction period is not significant, and therefore the impact to the public
or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is less that
significant.
b)Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
Existing condition:Please refer to the preceding existing condition response.
Environmental Evaluation:No significant hazard involving the release of hazardous material into the
environment would be anticipated since only regularly used cleaning materials will be utilized, only in
normal instances.
Finding:Less than significant impact —Please refer the response to Section VII(b).No
extraordinary risk of accidental explosion or the release ofhazardous substances is anticipated with
construction, development, and implementation or operation ofthe proposed project.
c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Existing condition:The subject project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school.
28 Rev. 07/03/02
'we
Environmental Evaluation:The proposed project is not located within one-quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school.The nearest school is located 1 mile easterly of the site.
Finding:No impact —As a result of the fact that the proposed project site is not located within one-
quarter mile ofan existing or proposed school, no significant impact is anticipated.
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?
Existing condition:The subject site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites (Federal
database) compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 56962.5.
Environmental Evaluation:The subject site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites
(Federal database) compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 56962.5.In addition, it is not on the
EPA database of current and potential Superfund sites currently or previously under investigation.Also,
to the best of EPA's knowledge,it has been determined that no steps will be taken to list this site on the
National Priorities List (NPL).It is not on any list of registered hazardous waste generators, or on a
database of sites which treat, store, dispose of, or incinerate hazardous waste.
Finding:No impact —The subject property is not included on any list of hazardous materials, and
has no known previous use history that would involve the use or storage of hazardous materials.
e)For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Existing condition:The subject site is located approximately 2 miles northwest ofthe McClellan-
Palomar Airport runway.However, the site is not within the airport land use plan.
Environmental Evaluation:The site is located outside the McClellan-Palomar Airport Area of
Influence.Therefore, the site will not cause a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area.
Finding:No impact —The project poses no impact as a potential safety hazard.
For a project within the vicinity ofa private airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Existing condition:No private airstrip exists in the vicinity of the subject project.
Environmental Evaluation:The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Finding:No impact -The project is not within the vicinity ofa private airstrip.
g)Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
Existing condition:The proposed project involves development of an undeveloped parcel.The
project is located directly adjacent to Adams Street.
29 Rev. 07/03/02
'14kie ‘..sed
Environmental Evaluation:Neither construction nor operation of the proposed project facilities will
significantly affect, block, or interfere with traffic on public streets,including any streets that would be
used for an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.No emergency response or
evacuation plan directs evacuees through the project.
Finding:No impact —No improvements are proposed by the project in any area which would
physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
h)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Existing condition:The proposed project site currently consists of an undeveloped parcel with urban
development to the north and east.Adjacent to the site on the west is an area of coastal sage scrub that
may be susceptible to fire.
Environmental Evaluation:An alternative Fire Suppression Plan for the project site has been
submitted with the conceptual architectural plans.As a result, the proposed project is not anticipated to
result in any significant additional exposure to wildfire risk.
Finding:Less than significant impact —In accordance with Section II.0 ofthe Carlsbad Landscape
Manual,an alternative Fire Suppression Plan has been prepared for the project site.This plan consists of
a written plan detailing alternative architectural and building methods to act in place of a typical 60 foot
fire suppression zone.In conjunction with this Plan, it is anticipated that wildland fire risk is less than
significant.
VIII.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -Would the project:
a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Existing condition:The subject project is required by law to comply with all federal, state and local
water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act, California Administrative Code Title 23, and
specific basin plan objectives identified in the "Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin.
The subject property is an undeveloped parcel with single family development to the north and east, an
undeveloped parcel to the west and Agua Hedionda Lagoon to the south.The Water Quality Control Plan
for the San Diego Basin identifies specific objectives for the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit.These objectives
include the requirement to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Best
Management Practices (BMP's).The project must also obtain a NPDES permit prior to construction.The
permit will require that the project develop and implement specific erosion control and storm water
pollution prevention plans to protect downstream water quality ofAgua Hedionda Lagoon.There is
currently no development on the subject parcel.
Environmental Evaluation:After development, there will be an increase in runoff from the study
area.A portion ofthe increase in runoff will be due to the use of imported water into the study area for
landscaping, etc.The remaining water increase will be due to the increased impervious area within the
project site.Application, certification and compliance with an NPDES permit for implementation of the
subject project will ensure that water quality exiting the subject site and eventually entering downstream
areas will be maintained to a level of acceptability.
30 Rev. 07/03/02
4.60 u.#600
Finding:Less than significant impact -The proposed project could result in temporary degradationofwater quality if it does not demonstrate compliance with all federal, state, and local regulations for
water quality.The project proponent shall adhere to applicable RWQCB regulations for control of
sedimentation and erosion, including the installation oftemporary detention basins or other means of
stabilization or impoundment required by the State Water Resources Control Board.All exposed graded
areas shall be treated with erosion control pursuant to City of Carlsbad erosion control standards,
including hydroseed, berms, desiltation basins, jute matting, sandbags, bladed ditches, or other
appropriate methods.Other Best Management Practices (BMPs)will be utilized.
b)Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)?
Existing condition:The proposed project will not involve depletion of groundwater supplies or
interference with ground water recharge.
Environmental Evaluation:The proposed project will not involve depletion of groundwater supplies
or interference with ground water recharge.
Finding:No impact —The proposed project is not expected to deplete groundwater supplies, or
interfere with ground water recharge.
c)Impacts to groundwater quality?
Existing condition:Please see the preceding description of existing condition Item VIII(a).
Environmental Evaluation:Please see the preceding description of environmental evaluation Item
VIII(a).
Finding:Less than significant impact —Inasmuch as the proposed project must comply with
federal, state and local water quality requirements, it is concluded that the potential impacts to
groundwater quality will be both temporary and less than significant.
d)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on-or off-site?
Existing condition:Drainage flows from the subject site into Agua Hedionda Lagoon .The average
yearly rainfall within this drainage area is 13 inches. Nearly all of the surface runoff within the Agua
Hedionda drainage area occurs between December and late March.
Environmental Evaluation:The proposed improvements will not significantly alter the existing
constructed drainage of the site, nor will they result in a net increase of downstream sedimentation in
Agua Hedionda Lagoon.Urban runoff from the proposed development will be channeled through
pervious pavement and into areas of rip rap before entering Agua Hedionda Lagoon as indicated in the
project's Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan, by O'Day Consultants, dated October 1,2005.The
greatest potential for short-term water quality impacts to the drainage basin would be expected during and
immediately following the grading and construction phases of the project, when cleared and graded areas
are exposed to rain and storm water runoff.
31 Rev. 07/03/02
eft fig\
Stripe .Nis0
To mitigate potential storm water pollution (mostly sediment) during construction, Best Management
Practices (BMP's) for grading contractor activities and BMP's for erosion and sedimentation are proposed.
Construction BMP's include vegetative stabilization such as hydroseeding, physical stabilization such as
dust control, diversion of runoff using temporary swales and drains, velocity reduction using check dams
and slope roughening, and sediment trapping using silt fencing, gravel barriers and inlets protection.
Contractor BMP's include managing dewatering and paving operations, structure construction and
painting, management of material delivery use and storage, spill prevention, water management, vehicle
cleaning and maintenance, and contractor, employee and subcontractor training.
Finding:Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated —The proposed project will not
substantially alter the existing pattern of runoff from and through the project, however the project has the
potential to result in hydrological impacts including downstream sedimentation.Grading and
construction BMP's are proposed as part of the project, which if followed,will mitigate the potential for
significant impacts.
e)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or
amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on-or off-
site?
Existing condition:Please refer to the preceding existing condition.No significant modification to
the drainage pattern of the site is proposed.
Environmental Evaluation:The proposed improvements will not significantly alter the existing
drainage pattern ofthe site.As a result of the installation NPDES required improvements, the urban
improvements proposed will not result in a net increase of downstream sedimentation into Agua
Hedionda Lagoon.
The flow rate or volume of runoff through the site and into Agua Hedionda Lagoon will not significantly
increase.The project will also result in a slight, but not significant increase in runoff due to the increase
in imported water to the site.
Finding:Less than significant impact -The project will also result in a slight, but not significant
increase in runoff due to the increase in imported water to the site.
f)Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Existing condition:The project site is currently an undeveloped parcel.Runoff from the site drains
into Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
Environmental Evaluation:Proposed storm water drainage systems on the project site have been
designed to accommodate the runoff projected from the proposed project.No impact to existing storm
drain systems and no additional sources of polluted runoff will result from implementation of the project.
Finding:Less than significant impact —No additional pollution of surface waters is anticipated to
result from the project.
g)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
32 Rev. 07/03/02
00".•
1/46••'.goo
Existing condition:The proposed project site presently drains into Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and
ultimately to the Pacific Ocean.These drainage facilities serve to maintain a decent water quality.
Environmental Evaluation:Construction of the proposed project improvements is required by law to
comply with all federal,state and local water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act and
associated NPDES regulations.As mentioned above, the project description includes a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan.Therefore temporary impacts associated with the construction operation will
be mitigated.The project will not result in permanent or long term degradation of water quality as a
result of the proposed pollution control program.
Finding:Less than significant impact —Please refer to the preceding responses.
h)Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map?
Existing condition:The proposed project improvements do not involve the placement of housing.
The property is not within the 100-year flood zone.
Environmental Evaluation:No placement of housing is proposed within the flood hazard area.
Finding:No impact —No housing is proposed as part of the project.
i)Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood
flows?
Existing condition:The subject project does not propose any structures within the 100-year flood
hazard area.
Environmental Evaluation:The project will not place any structures within the limits of the
identified 100-year flood hazard areas.Thus no impediment to flood flows will result from
implementation of the project.
Finding:No impact —It is concluded that the proposed project will not impeded or redirect
downstream flood flows.
j)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Existing condition:Please refer to existing condition description VIII(i)above.
Environmental Evaluation:Please refer to environmental evaluation discussion VIII(i)above.No
levee or dam exists onsite or downstream of the project.
Finding:No impact —It is concluded that the proposed project will not result in increased exposure
of people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding including flooding as
a result ofthe failure of a levee or dam.
k)Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Existing condition:The proposed project site is located in an area prone to seiche, tsunami or
mudflow conditions as identified in the City's MEIR, Map 5.10.1-2.
33 Rev. 07/03/02
*aktir %Rae'
Environmental Evaluation:Conditions for seiche, tsunami or mudflow do exist at the project site.
However, past occurrences of seiches and tsunamis in the area have shown to cause little or no damage to
life and property.
Finding:Less than significant impact —The potential for damage to the project from seiche,
tsunami or mudflow are very low.
l)Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters.
Existing condition:Construction of the proposed project will temporarily create (during finish
grading) exposed (unvegetated) soil on the subject site.The project applicant must however, obtain a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit prior to construction. The permit will require
that the project develop and implement specific erosion control and storm water pollution prevention
plans to protect downstream water quality of Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
Environmental Evaluation:The construction phase of the project could result in increased erosion
into Agua Hedionda Lagoon.As a result of the NPDES permit requirements associated with the proposed
project, no significant increase in erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters will result from the
project.Urban runoff from the proposed development will be channeled into the appropriate storm water
receptors as indicated in the project's Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan, by O'Day Consultants,
dated October 1,2005.The greatest potential for short-term water quality impacts to the drainage basin
would be expected during and immediately following the grading and construction phases of the project,
when cleared and graded areas are exposed to rain and storm water runoff.
As mentioned above, to mitigate potential storm water pollution (mostly sediment) during construction,
BMP's for erosion and sediment transport are proposed.Construction BMP's include vegetative
stabilization such as hydroseeding, physical stabilization such as dust control, diversion of runoff using
temporary swales and drains, velocity reduction using check dams and slope roughening, and sediment
trapping using silt fencing, gravel barriers and inlets protection.
Finding:Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated —The project will be required to
demonstrate compliance with NPDES sediment control requirements during the construction phase.
Compliance with the grading construction BMP's for the project will reduce potential impacts to a level of
insignificance.
m)Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives,
synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving
surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
Existing condition:The project design does not propose to create or allow any pollutant discharges
into receiving surface waters or other waters upstream or downstream of the subject project.
Environmental Evaluation:The project proposes no increase in pollutant discharges.The project
will be required to process and receive an NPDES permit.No significant levels ofheavy metals,
pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances, or
uncontrolled trash will be produced by the project.
Finding:Less than significant impact —No significant increase in pollutant discharges will result
from implementation of the proposed project.
34 Rev. 07/03/02
n)Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following
construction?
Existing condition:Please refer to existing condition Item VIII(a) above.
Environmental Evaluation:Please refer to environmental evaluation Item VIII(a) above.
Finding:Less than significant impact -No receiving water quality will be adversely affected
through implementation of the proposed project.
o)Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water
Act Section 303(d) list?
Existing condition:Agua Hedionda Lagoon is listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d)as an
"impaired" water body associated with the direct stormwater discharge from this project.Agua Hedionda
Lagoon has low priority impairment for bacteria indicators and sedimentation/siltation.
Environmental Evaluation:As proposed, subject to compliance with the proposed BMP's, the projectwillnot result in the increase of pollutants into downstream waters, including Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
Finding:Less than significant impact —No significant level ofpollutants are anticipated to be
released from the subject site.
p)The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or
degradation of beneficial uses?
Existing condition:Please refer to the preceding responses.
Environmental Evaluation:Please refer to the preceding responses.
Finding:No impact —Please refer to the preceding responses.
IX.LAND USE PLANNING -Would the project:
a)Physically divide an established community?
Existing condition:The project is situated on 1.08 acres located in the northwest quadrant of the cityofCarlsbad.The site is relatively square shaped.It is surrounded on the north and east by single family
development, to the west by vacant property, and to the south by Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
Environmental Evaluation:The parcel is zoned for residential development.Additionally,scenic
corridor standards and the Local Coastal Program require the project to remain below the level ofAdams
Street to the north.Therefore, the project will not affect views from this area.
Finding:Less than significant —The project would not significantly separate any contiguous
community areas.
b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
35 Rev. 07/03/02
NIS
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
Existing condition:The City of Carlsbad General Plan identifies the subject site as Residential Low
Medium (RLM) land uses.Existing Zoning is designated One —Family Residential (R-1).No changes
are proposed to either the General Plan or Zoning.
Environmental Evaluation:The proposed project will be consistent with all applicable land use
policies.No incompatibility exists between the proposed project and the land use regulations on the
property.
Finding:No impact -The proposed project will not be in conflict with any applicable land use
plan, policy, or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the project.
c)Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan?
Existing condition:The City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities (HMP)
is intended to lead to citywide permits and authorization for the incidental take ofsensitive plant and
animal species in conjunction with private developments, public projects and other activities which are
consistent with the Plan.The open space preserve system and program established by the HMP is
intended to replace that contained within the Open Space Element ofthe General Plan.
As part ofthe planning process for the HMP,a citywide interconnected open space preserve system was
identified.Areas were identified as biological habitat Core and Linkage Areas.
Environmental Evaluation:The project does not propose any development impacts into designated
HMP areas.The proposed development will occur wholly on the undeveloped parcel located on the south
side of Adams Street between Highland Drive and Park Drive.Figure 17 of the 1-IMP, Hub and SDG&E
Property, shows the project site as containing no hardline vegetation.Therefore the proposed project is
not in conflict with the HMP.
Finding:No impact —The subject project site is consistent with the City of Carlsbad Habitat
Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad.No other habitat conservation plans
specific to this site effect the property
X.MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value
to the region and the residents of the State?
Existing condition:The proposed project site is currently an undeveloped parcel.No known or
expected mineral deposits of future value to the region and the residents ofthe state are located in the
immediate vicinity ofthe subject project.
Environmental Evaluation:No known mineral resources have been identified on the site, and such
minerals are typically not found in soils typical of this site.As a result of the finish grading excavation
and disruption ofthe surface of the land that will result from the proposed project, no significant impact
to the potential for valuable mineral deposits is anticipated from the project.
36 Rev. 07/03/02
likk
11*NO
Finding:No impact -No known mineral resource ofregional or statewide value are known that
would be affected through implementation ofthe project.Additionally, the project would affect a
relatively small area of earth disruption, and any substantial mineral resource recovery under these
minimal circumstances would not be expected. The site is not located in an area of mineral resources as
identified in MEIR 93-01, map 5.13 -1.
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?
Existing condition:The subject site is not designated on the City of Carlsbad General Plan or the
Zoning Ordinance as a locally important mineral resource recovery site.
Environmental Evaluation:As a result of the fact that the City has not designated the subject
property as an important mineral resource recovery site in any regulatory land use document, it is
determined that implementation ofthe proposed project will not result in the loss of availability of a
locally important mineral resource recovery site.
Finding:No impact —No adopted regulatory land use documents, including the City of Carlsbad
General Plan or the Zoning Ordinance designate the subject site as any mineral resource recovery
location.
XI.NOISE -Would the project result in:
a)Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies?
Existing condition:The subject area is adjacent to Adams Street in the northwest quadrant of the CityofCarlsbad.The project will involve the development of 2 single family homes, which do not generate
significant noise, and do not act as constitute sensitive noise receptors.
Environmental Evaluation:In terms ofnoise generation, the construction of the proposed project is
anticipated to create the greatest amount of noise the project will generate, inasmuch as the permanent use
will not create significant noise.The City of Carlsbad Municipal Code (Chapter 8.48) prohibits
construction activity that would create disturbing, excessive, or offensive noise after sunset of any day,
and before 7 A.M. Monday through Friday, and before 8 A.M.on Saturday, and all day Sunday and
specified holidays.The Noise Ordinance does not set a defined noise level standard for construction
activities, but simply limits the hours ofconstruction.
The significance of construction noise produced during project construction is typically assessed in
accordance with the County of San Diego Noise Ordinance.San Diego County Noise Ordinance Section
36.410 stipulates that construction noise shall not exceed 75 dB for more than 8 hours during any 24-hour
period.
Finding:Less than significant impact —Both construction noise levels and permanent noise levels
generated by the project are anticipated to comply with City of Carlsbad Noise Policy standards. The
subject as a noise receptor has the potential for significant impact, but is mitigated and conditionally
acceptable if the mitigation measures outlined in MEIR 93-01 are followed.
b)Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne
noise levels?
37 Rev. 07/03/02
Existing condition:The proposed project is a single family development project, and will not
generate ground vibrations.
Environmental Evaluation:Although some ground vibration may occur during construction ofthe
project, the project is not anticipated to expose persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne
vibration or noise levels.
Finding:No impact -The project will not produce any significant groundbourne vibration.
c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
Existing condition:Please refer to response XI(a).
Environmental Evaluation:Please refer to response XI(a).
Finding:No impact —The proposed project is a single family development project.This project is
not anticipated to result in an increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity.
d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
Existing condition:Please refer to response XI(a).
Environmental Evaluation:Please refer to response XI(a).
Finding:Less than significant impact -During construction,a temporary increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity is anticipated. Construction will be scheduled to conform to the noise level
limitations specified in the Carlsbad Municipal Code,so the increase is not considered substantial or
significant.
e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Existing condition:The subject site is located approximately 2 miles northwest of the McClellan-
Palomar Airport.However,it does not lie within the Airport Influence Area identified by the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport (CLUP), adopted April,1994, prepared
by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG).
Environmental Evaluation:The property is not located within an airport land use plan.Therefore,
people working in the project area will not be significantly exposed to excessive noise levels.
Finding:No impact —The proposed project will not expose people to excessive noise levels.
0 For a project within the vicinity ofa private airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Existing condition:No private airstrip exists in the vicinity of the subject project.
Environmental Evaluation:The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip
38 Rev. 07/03/02
4..•••
Finding:No impact -The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
XII.POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the project:
a)Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
Existing condition:The subject project is an undeveloped parcel.Implementation ofthe project
would result in a minor increase in the intensity of usage of the site and in population.
Environmental Evaluation:The proposed project involves the development of a currently
undeveloped parcel.The development of 2 single family homes will result in a population increase of
approximately 4.64 persons.No inducement for substantial growth above the 4.64 persons, either directly
or indirectly will occur through implementation of the subject project.
Finding:No impact -The project will not induce substantial growth, nor will it induce further
population growth by providing infrastructure to support unplanned growth.
b)Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Existing condition:The subject parcel is currently undeveloped.
Environmental Evaluation:The proposed project will not displace any existing housing because no
housing exists in the area of the subject project.
Finding:No impact -No housing will be displaced by the project.
c)Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Existing condition:The project site is currently undeveloped and unoccupied.
Environmental Evaluation:The proposed project will not displace any people because no people,
residences or other development presently exists on the site.
Finding:No impact -No people or houses will be displaced by implementation of the project.
XIII.PUBLIC SERVICES
a)Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered government facilities,a need for new or physically
altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i.Fire protection?
39 Rev. 07/03/02
`ftio.
Existing condition:The Adams Street 2 Unit Subdivision project is located within the Zone 1 Local
Facilities Management Plan (LFMP)area.City of Carlsbad Fire Station No.1(1275 Carlsbad Village
Drive)serves the subject site.
Environmental Evaluation:The subject site is considered by the Carlsbad Fire Department to be
within an effective fire response time of Fire Station No.1 The subject project will not measurably affect
this anticipated current fire response times throughout the city.
Finding:No impact -The proposed project is within an area anticipated by the Fire Department for
urban development, and planned within their standard response time.The project will comply with the
standards identified in the Zone 1 LFMP, and therefore will not have any measurable affect on the fire
service demands or needs ofthe area.
ii.Police protection?
Existing condition:The Carlsbad Police Department (CPD), located on 2560 Orion Way, services
the entire city of Carlsbad.Although the City has not established an official service standard for the
department, CPD does maintain a general in-house guideline that is followed in order to assure adequate
police service to the community.This guideline suggests a six-minute maximum response time anywhere
within the city limits.In order to achieve this level of emergency service and to sufficiently patrol the
city, the CPD currently operates seven beats, each patrolled at any given time by one or two officers.
Environmental Evaluation:The proposed project would represent a slight increase in demand on
CPD resources due to the slight increase in retail establishments requiring police protection services.
However this increased demand is anticipated to be minimal, and the department is sufficiently staffed to
absorb such demand and continue to meet their own general service guideline ofmaintaining a six-minute
emergency response time.
Finding:Less than significant impact —The minimal increase in demand on police protection
resources represented by the proposed project will not significantly impact this service, inasmuch as their
department's service guideline will continue to be met.
iii.Schools
Existing condition:The proposed project involves the construction of2 single family homes.The
project will cause a slight increase in demand for schools.
Environmental Evaluation:The proposed project is residential and will have a slight impact on
school student generation.The project could be expected to generate approximately .938 students.The
project will pay all required Carlsbad Unified School District imposed fees as part ofthe permit process.
Finding:Less than significant -The project will generate approximately .938 students and,
therefore,will have a minimal impact on schools serving the area. The project will be conditioned to pay
all required Carlsbad Unified School District imposed fees as part of the permit process.
iv.Parks?
Existing condition:The proposed project involves the construction of 2 single family homes.The
project will cause a slight increase in demand for parks.
40 Rev. 07/03/02
%me
Environmental Evaluation:The proposed project is residential and will create an increase in demand
for parks.The project will demand approximately 0.014 acres of community park.The existing parkswithin Zone 1 can accommodate this amount of demand.
Finding:Less than significant impact —The proposed project is residential and will create a less
than significant increase in demand for parks.
v.Other public facilities?
Existing condition:Sewer:The Carlsbad Municipal Water District provides sewer service to the
subject site.Sewage from the site is processed at the Encina Wastewater Treatment Facility, via a sewer
line located along the southern boundary of the subject site.The Zone 1 LFMP stipulates that sewer trunk
line capacity must meet demand as determined by appropriate sewer districts must be provided concurrent
with development.
Water:The Carlsbad Municipal Water District provides water service to the subject site.Water is
provided via an existing water line located in Adams Street.The Zone 1 LFMP stipulates that water line
capacity must meet demand as determined by appropriate water district must be provided concurrent with
development.Also, that a minimum ten day average storage capacity must be provided prior to any
development.
Environmental Evaluation:Sewer:The subject project is not anticipated to exceed sewer demand
planned by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District for the subject site.
Water:The subject project is not anticipated to exceed water demand.
Finding:Less than significant impact -The proposed project will generate sewer and water usage
that the City of Carlsbad has the infrastructure to handle.No unanticipated demands will occur as a resultofthe project.
XIV.RECREATION
a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
Existing condition:The proposed project involves the construction of 2 single family homes.The
project will cause a slight increase in demand for parks.
Environmental Evaluation:The proposed project is residential and will create an increase in demandforparks.The project will demand approximately 0.014 acres of community park.The existing parkswithin Zone 1 can accommodate this amount of demand.
Finding:Less than significant impact —The proposed project is residential and will create a less
than significant increase in demand for parks.
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?
Existing condition:The proposed project does not include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion ofrecreational facilities.
41 Rev. 07/03/02
•
'•4110.1 Nhtlie
Environmental Evaluation:The proposed project does not include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion ofrecreational facilities.
Finding:No impact -No additional recreational facilities, and no construction or expansion of
recreational facilities will result from implementation ofthe proposed project.
XV.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -Would the project:
a)Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system?
Existing condition:The subject project is located in the northwest quadrant ofthe city of Carlsbad,
on Adams Street between Highland Drive and Park Drive.No traffic is presently generated by the site.
Environmental Evaluation:The proposed single family development is projected to generate 20
ADT.
Finding:Less than significant impact —The proposed project is projected to generate 20 ADT.
This increase is not considered an increase so substantial that it will impact the existing roadway systemin the vicinity ofthe site.
b)Exceed, either individually or cumulatively,a level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
Existing condition:All street segments and intersections in the immediate vicinity of the subject
project presently operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS "D" or better during the AM and PM peak
hour periods).Some intersections and roadway segments within the city operate at unacceptable levels of
service, including freeway links and the Palomar Airport Road/E1 Camino Real intersection.The
additional traffic generated by the project will cumulatively add to this traffic congestion.The proposed
project will generate approximately 20 ADT.
Environmental Evaluation:The increase of 20 ADT onto the adjacent street system will
cumulatively contribute to impacted road segments or intersections exceeding the level of service
standard established by SANDAG or by the City of Carlsbad.The proposed project will not significantly
impact traffic flow in the area ofthe project.
Finding:Potentially significant impact —The proposed project will add cumulatively to existing
significant impacted traffic levels of service within the city.
c)Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that result in substantial safety risks?
Existing condition:The proposed project will have no impact on air traffic demand or air traffic
patterns.
Environmental Evaluation:The proposed project is not located within the Area ofInfluence for theMcClellan-Palomar Airport.The project itself will not have an impact on air traffic demand or patterns.
Finding:Less than significant impact -The project will not generate or require air traffic and will
not physically interfere with air traffic patterns.
42 Rev. 07/03/02
.wri
d)Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses?
Existing condition:The project will be designed in accordance with City standards for single family
development.
Environmental Evaluation:The project will be designed in accordance with City standards for single
family development This includes adequate fire access and vehicular circulation, and roadway widths,
parking configuration, and length and widths of driveways.These standards have been adopted and have
been demonstrated through long-term use to decrease hazards or incompatible uses.
Finding:No impact -The project will not substantially increase hazards due to design features or
incompatible uses.
e)Result in inadequate emergency access?
Existing condition:The Carlsbad Fire Department is responsible for review of emergency access
plans for development projects.The project site plan will be assessed for emergency access by the Fire
Department prior to approval.
Environmental Evaluation:The City will review the details of the proposed design ofthe Adams
Street 2 Unit Subdivision to ensure compliance with emergency access plans.
Finding:No impact —The proposed project will be required to comply with emergency access
plans, and the project will not affect any public or private access to other property.
f)Result in inadequate parking capacity?
Existing condition:The proposed project is required to comply with Chapter 21.44 (Parking)of the
Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance.
Environmental Evaluation:The City of Carlsbad will review the final site plan to ensure its
compliance with the Parking Ordinance, and will not be approved if sufficient parking is not being
provided.Therefore it can be concluded that adequate parking capacity will be provided for the project.
Finding:No impact -Sufficient spaces will be provided onsite.
g)Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)?
Existing condition:The subject site is not identified on any regional or community plans relative to
alternative transportation.
Environmental Evaluation:The project is located on a site that is not considered integral to any
alternative transportation policies.Thus the project will not conflict with any such policies.
Finding:No impact —As a result ofthe fact that regional and local policies do not include any
specific reference to the site in terms ofalternative transportation programs, facilities, it is concluded that
the project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation.
43 Rev. 07/03/02
"Pt
Nog
XVI.UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS -Would the project:
a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
Existing condition:The proposed project will create a small increase in wastewater generated by the
currently undeveloped site.
Environmental Evaluation:The proposed project is consistent with the planned and anticipated
wastewater projections for the subject site,as indicated in MEIR 93-01.
Finding:Less than significant impact -The project would have a less than significant impact on
wastewater treatment.
b)Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant
environmental effects?
Existing condition:Please refer to the previous response.The project will not result in a significant
increase in quantity ofwastewater generation already handled by the Encina Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Environmental Evaluation:The project will not result in a significant increase in quantity of
wastewater generation already handled by the Encina Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Finding:No impact —No additional water or wastewater treatment facilities will be required due to
the construction of the proposed project.
c)Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Existing condition:The site is currently an undeveloped parcel.
Environmental Evaluation:The subject project is adequate in size and scope to adequately provide
for the project purpose.No additional new or expanded drainage facilities will be necessitated by
implementation of the proposed project.Both upstream and downstream facilities contain adequate
capacity and functionality to accept the storm water demands resulting when the project is complete.
Finding:No impact -No significant new storm water drainage facilities are proposed or would be
required from development ofthe proposed project.
d)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Existing condition:The existing site is an undeveloped parcel.There is no current demand for water.
Environmental Evaluation:Water service will be supplied by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District.
Proposed water usage on the site will be for landscape irrigation and the regular water usage associated
with 2 single family homes. The project will have no significant impact on water supplies.
Finding:Less than significant impact -The project will not result in a significant impact to water
supplies.
44 Rev. 07/03/02
_.
e)Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition
to the provider's existing commitments?
Existing condition:Please refer to response XVI(a).
Environmental Evaluation:Please refer to response XI(a).
Finding:No impact —No significant increase in wastewater treatment will result from the project.
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs?
Existing condition:The site is currently an undeveloped parcel and does not generate solid waste.
Environmental Evaluation:The waste provider will be Waste Management Services, and the City's
engineering staff will have Waste Management Services review the site plan for service adequacy as part
of the approval process.
Finding:No impact -No measurable significant increase in impact on solid waste creation is
expected to result from the subject project.
g)Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Existing condition:See previous response.The subject project is not anticipated to create any
significant increase in the amount of solid waste.The project is required to comply with federal, state and
local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
Environmental Evaluation:The project will create no significant impact on solid waste collection
and disposal, and will comply with federal,state and local statutes
Finding:No impact —The project will create no significant impact on solid waste collection and
disposal, and will comply with federal,state and local statutes.
XVII.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Existing condition:The subject site is an undeveloped parcel located in proximity to Agua Hedionda
Lagoon.The project must also obtain a NPDES permit prior to construction.The permit will require that
the project develop and implement specific erosion control and storm water pollution prevention plans to
protect downstream water quality ofAgua Hedionda Lagoon. There is currently no significant
development on the site.
Environmental Evaluation:After development, there will be an increase in runoff from the study
area.A portion of the increase in runoff will be due to the use of imported water into the study area for
45 Rev. 07/03/02
,4•10
landscaping, etc.The remaining water increase will be due to the increased impervious area within the
project site.The drainage pattern dictates that this drainage water will flow into 2 separate areas of riprap
onsite. Application, certification and compliance with an NPDES permit for implementation ofthe
subject project will ensure that water quality entering Agua Hedionda Lagoon will be maintained to a
level of acceptability.
Finding:Less than significant impact —Please refer to the responses to Sections IV and V.
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?)
Existing condition:The project site is currently an undeveloped parcel.The site produces no
significant air pollution or traffic at this time.
Environmental Evaluation:The proposed project will contribute incrementally to air pollution and
traffic congestion in the vicinity.
Finding:Less than significant impact —It is concluded that the cumulative impacts to air quality
and traffic will be less than significant.
c)Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Existing condition:The site has no impact on human beings at this time.
Environmental Evaluation:The project does not have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
Finding:No impact -Potential adverse effects on the human population have been evaluated in
preceding sections of this checklist.No unmitigable adverse environmental effects attributable to the
project have been identified.
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA
process,one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration.Section 15063(c)(3)(D).In this case a discussion should identify the following on
attached sheets:
a)Earlier analyses used.Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
b)Impacts adequately addressed.Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis.
c)Mitigation measures.For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from
46 Rev. 07/03/02
"MA
qkftae .4M01
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the
project.
EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City ofCarlsbad
Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008.
1.Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update(MEIR 93-01), City of Carlsbad Planning Department (March 1994).
2.Current Rules and Regulations, County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District
(November, 2002).
3.San Diego County Important Farmland, California Department of Conservation
(September, 2002).
4.Uniform Building Code— Volume 1 (1997); Table 18-1 -B.
5.Special Publication 42, California Geological Survey; State Geologist Division ofMines
and Geology (May 1996).
6.Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, (July
1987).
7.Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan for Adams Street, O'Day Consultants,
(October 1,2005).
8.Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 21; Zoning Ordinance, City of Carlsbad
9.Grading Ordinance, City ofCarlsbad
10.General Plan Land Use Element, City of Carlsbad
11.Preliminary Drainage Study for Adams Street, O'Day Consultants Inc., October 1,2005
12.Preliminary Biological Assessment, APN 206-200-01, Planning Systems, November 14,
2005
47 Rev. 07/03/02
111100#%VS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DISCUSSION:
AIR QUALITY
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994
General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled.
These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxidesofnitrogenandsulfur,and suspended particulates.These aerosols are the major contributors to airpollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin.Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-
attainment basin",any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant:therefore,
continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative
significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout,a variety of
mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR.These include:1)provisions for
roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce
vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management;3)
provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions
to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management
strategies when adopted.The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures
have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project
approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within
a "non-attainment basin",therefore,the "Initial Study"checklist is marked "Potentially Significant
Impact".This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not
required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01,by City Council Resolution No.94-246,included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations"for air quality impacts.This "Statement Of
Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master
EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required.
This document is available at the Planning Department.
BIOLOGY
Implementation of the proposed project will have the potential to result in significant impacts to
biological resources.The City of Carlsbad,in conjunction with the California Department of Fish and
Game and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has recently approved the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan
(HMP) which sets forth a program for impact assessment and mitigation of sensitive biological resources,
in accordance with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).The impacts associated with
the project have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of this HMP.Mitigation measures are
necessary in order to mitigate for the potentially significant impacts identified.These measures are
included in this environmental impact assessment.
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994
General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes.Roadway segments will be adequate to
accommodate buildout traffic; however,12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by
regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control.These generally include all
freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard.Even with the
implementation of roadway improvements,a number of intersections are projected to fail the City's
48 Rev. 07/03/02
Nor'
adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout,numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR.These include measures to ensure
the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of
transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail
systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted.The diversion of regional
through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not
within the jurisdiction of the City to control.The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation
mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as
conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of
intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial Study"
checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact".This project is consistent with the General Plan,
therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR
93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for
circulation impacts.This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects
covered by the General Plan's Master EIR,including this project, therefore, no further environmental
review of circulation impacts is required.
A MEIR may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the filing ofan
application for a later project.The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to determine whether it is
still adequate to review subsequent projects.Although the MEIR was certified more than five years ago,
the City's preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no substantial changes have occurred with respect
to the circumstances under which the MEIR was certified.The only potential changed circumstance, the
intersection failure at Palomar Airport Rd. and El Camino Real has been mitigated to below a level of
significance with new roadway improvements.Additionally,there is no new available information,
which was not known and could not have been known at the time the MEIR was certified.Therefore, the
MEIR remains adequate to review later projects.
HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
After development, there will be an increase in runoff from the subject property.A portion of the
increase in runoff will be due to the use of imported water into the study area for landscaping, etc.The
remaining water increase will be due to the increased impervious area within the project site.
Application, certification and compliance with an NPDES permit for implementation of the subject
project will ensure that water quality exiting the subject site and eventually entering Agua Hedionda
Lagoon will be maintained to a level of acceptability.
The proposed project could result in temporary degradation ofwater quality if it does not demonstrate
compliance with all federal, state, and local regulations for water quality.The project proponent shall
adhere to applicable RWQCB regulations for control of sedimentation and erosion, including the
installation of temporary detention basins or other means of stabilization or impoundment required by the
State Water Resources Control Board.All exposed graded areas shall be treated with erosion control
pursuant to City of Carlsbad erosion control standards, including hydroseed, berms, desiltation basins,
jute matting, sandbags, bladed ditches, or other appropriate methods.Other Best Management Practices
(BMPs)will be utilized.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES
49 Rev. 07/03/02
'ter
To mitigate potentially significant project impacts, the following mitigation measures shall be applied to
the development of the proposed project:
BIOLOGY:
1.The project applicant shall avoid impacts to and provide a conservation easement over a
minimum of .59 acres of CSS and revegetated CSS onsite.
2.The project applicant shall pay in-lieu mitigation fees for 0.14 acres of NNG and 0.02 acres of
DIST areas in an amount as determined by the Carlsbad City Council.
3.The project applicant shall avoid clearing and grubbing of vegetation during the avian nesting
season (Feb.15 through Aug. 31) unless a qualified biologist confirms, through a documented survey
immediately prior to clearing activities, that no nesting gnatcatchers or other sensitive birds will be
impacted.
4.No fire buffer impacts or vegetation thinning shall occur within the preserved open spaces.
HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY:
1.Prior to commencement ofthe project, and pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, the
project proponent shall notify the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)ofthe activities
proposed, and shall receive water quality certification for the construction operation,if required by the
RWQCB.
2.The project proponent shall comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit regulations as promulgated by the California RWQCB for the San Diego region.This
shall include control of all non-storm discharges during construction, and development and
implementation of a monitoring and reporting program to assess the storm water pollution prevention
plan.
3.The project proponent shall comply with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (December
2003) and adhere to applicable RWQCB regulations for control of sedimentation and erosion, including
Best Management Practices, such as installation of temporary detention basins or other means of
stabilization or impoundment required by the State Water Resources Control Board.The following
guidelines shall be utilized during design and implemented during construction to reduce runoff and
minimize erosion:
a.Comply with current drainage design policies set forth in the City of Carlsbad procedures.
b.Create desiltation basins where necessary to minimize erosion and prevent sediment transport
until the storm drain system is in place.
c.Landscape all exposed, manufactured slopes per City ofCarlsbad erosion control standards.
d.Phase grading operations and slope landscaping to reduce the susceptibility of slopes to erosion.
e.Control sediment production from graded building pads with low perimeter berms, desiltation
basins,jute matting,sandbags, bladed ditches, or other appropriate methods.
50 Rev. 07/03/02
•i
_-
'-
10/5/05 Adams St 2 Unit Subdivision —Looking South
10/5/05 Adams St 2 Unit Subdivision —Looking North
e
.,
it
...
,,„
...-.-,....
10/5/05 Adams St 2 Unit Subdivision —Looking East
West 10/5/05Adams St 2 Unit Subdivision —Looking